The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Harland & Wolff plc — Employer’s Liability

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement on Harland & Wolff plc and employer’s liability.

Sir Reg Empey: I thank Members for the opportunity to address them on the matter of my Department’s obligations to Harland & Wolff plc, which is the shell company left in the ownership of my Department after the privatisation of the shipbuilder Harland & Wolff in 1989.
The purpose of the statement is to inform Members of a significant potential liability that has fallen to my Department with regard to employer’s liability claims. That potential liability relates to compensation payments to the victims of asbestos-related diseases who are former Harland & Wolff employees. Many of them have been the subject of intense suffering and distress. I wish to make it clear at the outset that Harland & Wolff plc is an entirely separate legal entity from the current shipbuilding business. The potential liability and my statement have nothing to do with the trading situation of the shipbuilding business or with Harland & Wolff Group plc.
The matter of potential liabilities was first highlighted in the Executive’s position report, which was presented to the Assembly by the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, on 19 June 2001. It arises because of commitments provided by the Government in 1974 to Harland & Wolff, which were confirmed at privatisation in 1989. Those commitments have crystallised into liabilities as a result of the insolvency of Harland & Wolff plc employer’s liability insurer, Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd, in January last year.
As a result of the insolvency, employers’ liability policy holders, including Harland and Wolff plc and other organisations such as British Shipbuilders, are now required to pay out on agreed claims for asbestosis and associated diseases caused by exposure to asbestos. It is important to spell out what that means in human terms before I deal further with the legal and technical aspects of the case.
Before 1970, asbestos was commonly used in shipbuilding and other heavy engineering industries. Medical evidence became available that established that exposure to the substance could result in long-term illness or death. Many former workers in the industry find themselves in that situation. This is a tragedy of huge proportions, and nothing in the volumes of legal papers conveys the scale of human suffering and distress involved. Members may have seen interviews with people who suffer from asbestosis or related illnesses, and the tales of those affected are distressing.
Asbestos-related conditions take a long time to manifest themselves and experts estimate that there could be just under 3,000 claims by 2050. Legal advice, affirmed by counsel, has confirmed that my Department has an obligation to provide financial support to Harland & Wolff plc to meet these employers’ liability insurance claims.
An actuarial assessment by a leading London-based international firm of actuaries has confirmed that the extent of the liabilities could be approximately £10 million a year in each of the next four years. Total estimated liabilities could be as much as £190 million in the period to 2050.
My Department has already made a provision in its accounts for the current gross cost of those liabilities as estimated by the actuaries. The Department of Finance and Personnel has confirmed with the Treasury that, as a result of the current resource accounting and budgeting rules, the provision will count as annually managed expenditure. That will resolve the main costs of the liability, and that means that, based on the current best estimates, the maximum cost to the departmental expenditure limit that we face is our current estimate of £0·5 million this year and £10 million in 2002-03. From 1 April 2003, claims paid will not represent a new cost, as that is already reflected in the provision. In effect, the remainder of the costs will, within Treasury rules, be met outside Northern Ireland’s departmental expenditure limit and will not affect the Executive’s spending power.
However, the issue is not simply one of legal commitments and technicalities. The needs and rights of victims of those terrible illnesses are central. They have faced a range of serious medical conditions including asbestosis, mesothelioma, diffuse pleural thickening, pleural plaques and lung cancer. I understand that there is currently no effective cure for many of those diseases, which are debilitating and insidious and which often take many years to present. The responses to drugs are generally short-lived. All that is extremely distressing and traumatic for those involved and for their families, and the Assembly will wish to acknowledge their sense of worry and apprehension.
Therefore, it is important that, although I outline the legal obligations, actuarial assessment and expenditure implications, our debate should be set firmly in that human context.
The matter is urgent for several reasons. We have a responsibility to meet our obligations to victims of those diseases and their relatives who continue to suffer. Harland & Wolff plc is rapidly running out of cash and needs funds urgently so that it can meet claims as they fall due. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an assurance from the Government that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the company to trade properly.
Under company law, the directors cannot trade without an assurance that they have sufficient assets to meet all their liabilities. Therefore, I intend to provide assurance to the directors that my Department will meet its legal obligations and ensure that sufficient funds are provided to allow the company to meet its debts as they fall due.
In parallel with that assurance, my officials, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel, will seek to ensure the maximum possible recovery of expenditure from the Treasury and from the financial services compensation scheme (FSCS). The FSCS was set up to protect policy holders and others where insurers are unable to meet their liabilities under policies issued. It is funded by levies made on insurance companies. I shall provide more detail about that scheme later.
I must give Members further background information about how the situation arose. In 1975 Harland & Wolff was taken into public ownership and its share capital was acquired by the Department of Commerce — now the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. After 14 years in Government ownership, the company was privatised in September 1989 through an employee and management buyout that was supported by the Norwegian shipowner and industrialist Fred Olsen.
After disposal of its shipbuilding trade through privatisation to what has become Harland & Wolff Group plc, my Department retained 100% ownership of the old company, Harland & Wolff plc. At privatisation, certain assets and liabilities remained with the old Harland & Wolff plc, in particular, all liabilities that existed at the time of the sale resulting from the conduct of the business before transfer. That was similar to arrangements made for other privatisations.
As I have said, the current position has arisen through the insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd — formerly the Iron Trades Group — which acted as employers’ liability insurer for Harland & Wolff plc and for other leading UK companies, including British Shipbuilders and British Steel Corporation.
The situation, therefore, has UK-wide implications. In addition, it is likely that many of the claims will relate to Harland & Wolff plc workers who were employed and domiciled in Great Britain. Legal advice has confirmed that, as part of the contractual arrangements at privatisation, the Department has retained an obligation to guarantee funding in relation to employers’ and public liability claims, for which Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd acted as insurer.
My officials have consulted the departmental solicitor’s office at each stage of the process and have taken legal advice from Lovells, a leading London-based international firm of lawyers that acted for the Government at the time of privatisation in 1989. Lovells has continued to provide advice on other Harland & Wolff matters since then. That firm’s opinion has been confirmed by counsel.
As I have said, the matter of the potential liabilities was highlighted in the Executive’s position report on 19 June 2001. The extent of the potential liability was unclear at that time, and an actuarial assessment of Harland & Wolff plc’s potential future exposure was not completed until December 2001.
The actuarial assessment was undertaken by William M Mercer Ltd, a leading London-based international firm of actuaries. The final report concludes that potential claims from now to approximately 2050 could amount to £190 million gross.
Mercer’s analysis assumes that there is the potential to recover up to £49 million of the £190 million from the FSCS. Employers’ liability cover became compulsory in Northern Ireland in 1975, and the FSCS meets the balance of claims for exposures from that date onwards after recoveries are made from other sources, such as Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd.
However, any potential recovery from the scheme is dependent on the eligibility of Harland & Wolff plc as an applicant company. That is being investigated.
The FSCS arrangements apply to companies in Northern Ireland only in respect of agreed claims that cover periods of exposure after 1975 — that being the date at which employers’ liability insurance became compulsory in Northern Ireland. William H Mercer Ltd’s view is that the majority of exposure at Harland & Wolff plc occurred before 1975. The latent period for asbestosis and related diseases to present could be anything up to 40 years. However, although the time lag on settlement payments could reach as far out as 2050, claims are expected to peak in the next few years.
If the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment were not to confirm to the directors of Harland & Wolff plc that it would meet its obligations, the directors would have no alternative but to seek a winding-up of the company. In those circumstances, the receiver or liquidator would still look to the Government to fulfil their legal obligations to Harland & Wolff plc on foot of the undertakings given in 1974 and 1989. There would also be a further period of uncertainty and distress for the claimants.
The situation is extremely regrettable. However, it has arisen due to commitments made in 1974 and at privatisation, and the unforeseen insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. I assure Members that I shall make certain that my officials take every step to monitor the situation, to minimise liabilities and to ensure that maximum recovery is obtained from all available sources.
I have outlined to Members the obligations that have fallen on my Department because of arrangements at privatisation and the insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. I have highlighted the urgency of the situation for the company, and I shall ensure that it is provided with sufficient funds with which to meet those obligations. However, I have also emphasised the acute human dimension and the real difficulties faced by those affected by those serious asbestos-related conditions.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has a clear duty, as owner of Harland & Wolff plc and on the basis of professional advice taken, to respond plainly and unequivocally today and to remove uncertainty for sufferers of those harrowing conditions.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to my Colleague Dr Farren and to Department of Finance and Personnel officials for the assistance that they have offered to my Department in recent weeks.

Mr Sean Neeson: It is only right that the Assembly accepts its legal responsibilities. Over the years, I have known many people who have suffered from asbestosis caused by their employment in the shipyard. It is a terrible disease. In many cases, it has resulted in fatalities.
Can the Minister tell the House whether any of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s programmes for 2002 and 2003 will be affected by the compensation that is expected to be paid out? Can he clarify whether the Department’s budget will be affected by further compensation claims after 2003? Finally, is the Minister aware of any similar situation in which an organisation has been privatised and similar problems could arise in future?

Sir Reg Empey: I said in my statement that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has made a bid in the February monitoring round to cover the figure of £500,000 that we believe is necessary in the current financial year. Next year, a liability of anything up to £10 million could fall on my Department in regard to its obligations in this matter. The Department will make bids through the normal procedures with the Department of Finance and Personnel. We must await the outcome of final decisions on the Department’s total budget. As I said in my statement, Departments are moving towards a different type of budgeting in the longer term.
That different type of budgeting is best described as resource accounting, under which, after 2002-03, liabilities that are currently provided for will be treated as annually managed expenditure. In practice, that means that the liability is already clear, the Treasury knows what it is and provision is made for it in accounts. That will be conducted nationally.
Mr Neeson’s final question was whether similar situations existed in other privatised companies — the answer is "Yes". British Shipbuilders, a state-owned amalgamation of shipbuilding industries, is directly affected by the insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. The British Steel Corporation, the former owners of Corus, is also affected directly by the insolvency. The Department of Trade and Industry in London is in the same boat as us.
The matters are being dealt with under annually managed expenditure. My understanding is that, after 2002-03, the spending power of the block will not be affected by those liabilities.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I note that regulations that relate to compensation for various lung diseases in existing companies currently go through the Department for Employment and Learning.
Will the Minister confirm that the matter is being dealt with urgently? Sadly, any delay may mean that some of the workers and family members who are affected will no longer be alive to benefit from compensation payments. Can he further outline the likely claims on public expenditure in future years?

Sir Reg Empey: The matter is being dealt with urgently because the Harland & Wolff Group plc, which is wholly owned by my Department, has a board of directors who must confirm the company’s annual accounts. The directors must be satisfied that there are sufficient resources to meet the company’s debts. Those debts are determined by court decisions in respect of individual claims. The directors must respond annually by submitting and signing the accounts, and by having them audited. Therefore, the auditors must know that the directors are satisfied that there are sufficient assets to meet liabilities.
In my statement, I said that I intended to confirm to the directors that my Department will meet the liabilities with regard to those matters so that the company’s directors will be satisfied that they have assets to meet their liabilities. If I did not do so, the company would have to go into liquidation. However, that would save the public purse nothing. We are in this position because of undertakings that were given in 1974, and in 1989 at the time of privatisation, that that was happening nationally. Without those undertakings, the company would be unable to trade.
The anticipated amount of required resources for this financial year is £0·5 million. In the next financial year, that could rise to £10 million, depending on the flow of claims and on the level and speed of settlements. There is always some doubt about that. There will be continuous annual monitoring. Actuaries will give annual updates on what the current and future liabilities are likely to be.
The issue concerns provisions. I repeat that we are pursuing every avenue to minimise the resources required to meet those claims. There is a compensation scheme, which has some technical limitations. Nevertheless, we shall pursue it. My colleagues in the Department of Finance and Personnel are fully engaged with the Treasury on the matter, and together every avenue will be pursued.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I take this opportunity to welcome the return of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment following his illness. We are delighted to see him. We missed him — even if at times that was only to ensure a quorum.
More seriously, I welcome the Minister’s efforts to face up to an awful situation. Asbestosis, mesothelioma and their array of attendant problems are a major human tragedy. In my day job, I treat several patients who suffer from the effects of asbestosis, and it is one of the worst possible afflictions.
Several problems concern the old Harland & Wolff plc and the new Harland & Wolff Group plc. Although I do not wish to pursue those in detail today, perhaps the Minister will provide further information on paper as to the structures and how such matters fit together.
The Minister said that much of the exposure came before 1975. There followed a period of exposure from 1975 to 1989. How much exposure was there after 1989? How much money has been settled to date in respect of existing cases? That might be relevant to future settlements.
Why was none of that foreseen in 1989 at the time of privatisation? Surely steps should have been taken at that time to sort out the respective liabilities of the old and the new companies.
Are there contingent liabilities other than those associated with asbestos? What else might emerge from the woodwork? I urge the Minister —

Mr Speaker: Order. The opportunity is for Members to ask a question. I am usually fairly generous when it is two or three, but when it is 20 —

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: My question is multifaceted.

Mr Speaker: It is, and many other Members wish to ask questions on the issue. Therefore, I ask the Member to restrict himself to the questions he has already asked and to allow the Minister to answer them.

Sir Reg Empey: I admit that I am struggling to keep up, but I shall try to cover as many points as possible. Through his work, the Member will be far more familiar with the outworkings of those diseases than will most of the Members.
The Government have no involvement in exposure after 1989. That is a private matter for the insurers of the new company and its own public liability insurers. We have no ongoing trading activities with the old company; therefore my understanding is that no liabilities exist.
I shall write to the Member to detail how much has been settled to date. I do not have that information to hand. However, there are currently approximately 800 unresolved claims in the system. Work continues on those every week.
Of course, not all claims are met. However, it gives an idea of the scale of the problem. The Department expects the number of claims to peak over the next three to four years, because of the time that elapses between people’s exposure to asbestos and their making a claim.
The Member asked whether the situation could have been foreseen. The approach taken was no different from that taken in other privatisations. In the 1980s the Thatcher Government pushed forward a series of privatisations in the public sector, and the privatisation of Harland & Wolff was dealt with in the same way. When deals are done in the private sector, it is not unusual for the outgoing shareholder to accept responsibility for existing liabilities.
I have just received information that will give Members a sense of the scale of the situation. When the insurance company was declared insolvent in January, 720 claims were at various stages of negotiation. A further 107 claims have since been received, bringing the total to 827. Of those, 638 were from Northern Ireland-based claimants, and 189 were from Great Britain-based claimants. On 19 February, 414 claims had been settled, and 413 were outstanding. Since January 2001, payments made directly by Harland & Wolff for settled claims for damages have amounted to £2,714,335. A further £786,000 has been paid for plaintiffs’ costs. Since January payments made directly by the Iron Trades Group in settlement of Harland & Wolff’s defence costs have amounted to £457,000.
Prior to its insolvency, claims were made against the insurers. I do not know the scale of that, but if Members wish to pursue that matter, I will facilitate them.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. He has told a disturbing tale on two levels. Of primary concern is the suffering experienced by former employees of Harland & Wolff, but of secondary concern is the cost to the public purse of the British Government’s failed privatisation policy, for which the public must now pay.
The Minister estimates that the claims will cost the Executive up to £10·5 million by 2003. Following that, the claims are not expected to affect the Executive’s spending power. However, has the Department of Finance and Personnel estimated the cost to the health budget of dealing with an increase in diseases that are directly related to asbestos? What strain will that put on the Executive’s spending power?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member referred to the impact of the privatisation policy. He should be aware that the liability arose because of the insolvency of the insurer, not because of privatisation. The Member should also be aware that when the company was in public ownership, vast sums of public money were required to sustain it — there was an ongoing cost associated with the company’s being in public ownership. Many companies in public ownership were spectacularly unsuccessful, which meant a higher cost to the public purse.
Inevitably, the health budget will be affected by significant costs, but that must be put in the context of the costs to the Health Service of smoking-related diseases and drug and alcohol abuse. I do not know what the cost will be. My Colleague in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety may be able to give some guidance. Undoubtedly, the cost will be considerable. Once the illnesses manifest themselves, in many cases they require intense treatment over a long period. I am happy to refer the matter of quantifying the cost to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Mr David Ervine: I pay tribute to the Minister for showing the humane face of Government in his recognition of the suffering of those people. If I interpret his statement correctly, he has placed the most vulnerable, those who are suffering, higher on the agenda than is often the case.
Will the Minister confirm that, in accepting liability, approximately 30% of the moneys that we will pay out will go to members of the legal profession, who are fit and well? Those who suffer from the diseases might be described as the "walking dead", because there is only one outcome of those debilitating illnesses. The long and laborious legal process will ensure that some of the sufferers will not benefit from our liability. Since the Minister is now offering Harland & Wolff plc the wherewithal to pay compensation, can he and the Department expedite the process so that those who suffer from these illnesses will at least feel that their pain has been acknowledged?
I am sorry to take so long, Mr Speaker. I am conscious of your previous intervention.
The British Government seem to have a cunning plan as regards asbestosis. They argue that the insurance company or the company during whose employment a person contracted asbestosis are the only companies that can be held liable. That is a move away from previous cases where insurance companies had to accept partial liability for a person with the illness who could prove that they had worked in many companies, during whose employment they were exposed to asbestos. Will the Minister confirm that the moneys that he will provide to Harland & Wolff plc are to cover compensation for partial liability, rather than single liability cases only?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member is correct to highlight the vulnerability of that large group of people. I have tried to express my views and those of the Executive in that regard. When I read out the costs of some of the claims that have been met so far, I indicated the substantial contribution towards legal costs that is required. I cannot confirm the figure of 30%. However, the cash amounts are on record, and the Member can calculate the costs when he reads Hansard in the morning.
The claims process can be a long-drawn-out one, and it must be considered from several viewpoints. Not everyone who is suffering from an illness related to employment with Harland & Wolff plc is a resident of Northern Ireland. Harland & Wolff plc had staff in Great Britain who worked as subcontractors in several shipyards over a long period. Some 189 people, out of a total of 638, are based in Great Britain.
A recent court ruling was made in the Fairchild case that, before compensation will be paid, the applicant must prove that he or she contracted the disease because of exposure to the substance at a single place of employment. Employees, therefore, who moved from one company to another cannot prove that they contracted the disease at a specific company. That is my understanding of the Fairchild ruling. Thus, a significant burden of proof is imposed on the applicant. If a person was employed exclusively by Harland & Wolff plc, it will be much easier for him to prove the validity of his case. However, if that employee moved between companies, it will be much more difficult for him to do so. The Fairchild case will be appealed — it is an evolving situation, and it is not clear how it will be resolved. The Member is correct that that has become a significant hurdle for many who may have been exposed to the substance when working for several employers, but I cannot give him any further comfort on the partial liability issue until the case is resolved.

Dr Ian Adamson: I thank the Minister for his statement, which was excellent as usual. How prevalent are the complications of asbestosis, such as neoplasia, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma and Caplan’s syndrome, and, more specifically, how do those diseases affect the relatives of the sufferers?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member is far more able than I am to comment on those illnesses. However, it is clear from the list of illnesses that he read out, some of which I mentioned in my statement, that exposure to asbestos results in a range of diseases that affect people to varying degrees.
The Member raised a significant point about sufferers’ relatives. The distress of relatives whose loved ones have contracted such illnesses is only one of the problems to be considered. The situation is potentially similar to that caused by passive smoking in that relatives of people who were exposed to asbestos at work have made claims in their own right. They ingested substances from fibres that workers transported home on their clothing and, thus, some 30 years later, contracted illnesses that are directly related to asbestos fibres. That evidence was not immediately apparent and has emerged only recently.
Relatives are affected by this in two ways: first, they undergo the trauma of a loved one’s illness, and, secondly, as a result of secondary exposure, many contract the illnesses themselves. Sadly, this affects many people, some of whom are not yet aware that they were exposed to asbestos, or of the many insidious and debilitating illnesses that, as Dr Adamson has pointed out, can result from such exposure. The Executive must examine these matters seriously.

Mr Speaker: Lest it be seen as a precedent, I point out that I permitted the Minister to answer that question because he wanted to express something of the human suffering involved, which is entirely appropriate. Had the question been interpreted as a request for a professional opinion, it would have been inadmissible. Even if the Minister had been qualified to respond, questions in pursuit of a professional opinion — for example, legal, medical or other — are inadmissible. Questions to Ministers must relate to their departmental responsibilities. I mention that not to obstruct the question, which the Minister has fully answered, but lest its admissibility be seen as a precedent in any other circumstances. Professional opinion questions are not admissible.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the report. He has made a direct attempt to address the delivery of insurance cover and assistance to those who suffered. In my constituency there has been a tradition of people working in the shipyard. Recently I was involved in the case of a constituent who tried to claim damages after the death of her husband, who had suffered from asbestosis. A settlement was made.
What is the timescale between making a claim and receiving a settlement? Many families have waited 12 months, 18 months, or even years, just for their applications to be processed. When can claimants expect to receive the cheques — which is the best way to put it — in compensation for the disease from which they and their families have suffered? Why is 2050 the cut-off date? Also, how can we directly help the families, whom we want to look after?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member, like others, has had first-hand experience of the impact of these diseases. The approach has to include compassion, on the one hand, and realism — given the legal framework — on the other.
This is a complicated process. As I said, 827 claims have been lodged. At insolvency, in January 2001, there were 720 claims at various stages. Since then, 107 claims have been received, bringing the total to 827. Four hundred and fourteen claims had been settled by 19 February 2002. Therefore half of the total claims outstanding have been settled within this period. Some claims are disallowed, and I have given the reasons. The timescale could be 12 months or longer in some cases. I am conscious that the process should not be prolonged unduly, as highlighted by the Member for East Belfast Mr Ervine, and Mr Shannon. However, public funds are being used, and technicalities will affect whether liability is clearly accepted. As I said, there is an outstanding court case that could delay the process. However, I will take the Member’s point on board.
After calculating the dates of exposure to the disease and people’s estimated lifespans, it was felt that nobody who might have been exposed to the disease would be alive after 2050. In other words, fewer are thought to have been exposed post-1975 therefore, allowing for individual lifespans, it is unlikely that the majority of sufferers would live beyond 2050. The estimates could vary, but by 2050 the number of claims will have petered down to single figures. The bulk of the claims is expected in the next four or five years.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, I offer my sympathy to those who have been affected by asbestos-related diseases. It is a terrible affliction.
It is a concern that, once again, the Assembly is paying for commitments made and arrangements negotiated by the British Government in 1974 and during the privatisation of Harland & Wolff plc.
When did Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd become insolvent? Did the company become insolvent as a result of the potentially large claims? Are the claims related only to Harland & Wolff plc or to other companies as well? How much was paid to the insurers, and will any of that money be recouped? Go raibh maith agat.

Sir Reg Empey: The privatisation was negotiated by the British Government as part of a series of privatisations. However, the nature of negotiations in subsequent privatisations has not been much different, no special arrangements were made during the privatisation of Harland & Wolff plc that did not apply to other companies.
The reasons for the insurer’s insolvency include the huge scale of the settlements and the fact that the volume and amount of claims have been higher than the underwriters anticipated. Therefore the company’s liabilities were deemed to be far in excess of its assets at the time, and it went into receivership.
There were approximately 2,000 policy holders, of which Harland & Wolff plc is one. That might give you a flavour of the scale of the situation. British Steel Corporation had thousands of employees, and British Shipbuilders covered many shipyards in the UK. Harland & Wolff plc is only one cog in the wheel. The issue extends far beyond our shores and involves a large national liability.

Mr Duncan Dalton: The financial services compensation scheme may be available to Harland & Wolff plc to enable it to recover some moneys, but its availability depends on the company’s eligibility. What are the requirements for eligibility? If such money were recovered, how long would it take for that to be made clear? Would that money be returned to the UK Treasury, rather than to the Northern Ireland Executive?

Sir Reg Empey: With regard to the latter point, if the moneys are recovered from the financial services compensation scheme, they will return to the person and the part of the block that pays the money. In most cases, that would be to the Treasury, because it will pay most of the bill. The financial services compensation scheme is levied on the insurance industry. In other words, all insurers pay into the scheme. It is similar to the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) scheme. The industry pays into a compensation scheme to cover situations where a company makes serious mistakes. It is designed to protect the policy holder.
Employers’ liability insurance became compulsory in only 1975. Therefore the scheme applies only to post-1975 cases. If one applies to the compensation scheme, eligibility must be approved. One eligibility criterion will relate to the dates when the claims can be deemed relevant. There will be a cut-off point in 1975; and some claims will flow from before that date, and others after it. Another will relate to the eligibility of publicly-owned companies as opposed to privately-owned companies. All those legal technicalities must be drawn out.
With the Department of Finance and Personnel, we have made a commitment to do all in our power to maximise recoveries from the scheme. We should get on with that work and do what we can. In the meantime, it is likely that cash payments will have to be made in this, and the next, financial year. If we are eligible to receive compensation, that will come later. We must make the cash provision now to allow the company to trade and to pay compensation to the victims, as has been requested.
If compensation is awarded, I suspect that it will be divided. If compensation is eligible for individual claims out of moneys that we will have paid, we will have a claim on that. If it is awarded on the bulk of claims — paid by Her Majesty’s Treasury — that money will revert there.

Assembly: Finance and Personnel Committee

Resolved:
That Mr Roy Beggs shall replace Mr James Leslie as a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. — [Mr Davis.]

Assembly: Business Committee

Resolved:
That Mr David McClarty shall replace Mr Jim Wilson as a member of the Business Committee. — [Mr Davis.]

Assembly: Standards and Privileges Committee

Resolved:
That Mr Derek Hussey shall replace Mr Roy Beggs as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. — [Mr Davis.]

Assembly: Committee on Procedures

Resolved:
That Rev Dr William McCrea shall replace Mr Ian Paisley Jnr as a member of the Committee on Procedures. — [Mr Morrow.]

Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move:
After Standing Order 73, insert
"74. Appointments to The Assembly Commission
(1) The Assembly shall by resolution appoint the prescribed number of Members of the Assembly to be members of the Commission.
(2) Appointments under paragraph (1) shall be made within 28 days after the first sitting of the Assembly after dissolution.
(3) Any resolution under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support.
(4) In the event of a vacancy occurring, the Speaker shall, as soon as may be possible, inform the Assembly of the vacancy. Any vacancy shall be filled by resolution of the Assembly within 28 sitting days of the vacancy occurring.
(5) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a member of the Commission if he/she holds a relevant office.
(6) Where a Member of the Assembly is appointed to a relevant office he/she shall forthwith cease to be a member of the Commission.
(7) A Commissioner may at any time resign by giving notice in writing to the Speaker.
(8) In this Standing Order a relevant office means a Minister, a junior Minister or a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of:
(a) a Statutory Committee;
(b) the Public Accounts Committee;
(c) the Audit Committee."
The amendment proposes a new Standing Order to enable a provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to be addressed in Standing Orders. The proposed Standing Order outlines an appointment procedure to the Assembly Commission.
Provision is made for the establishment of the Assembly Commission under section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act also sets out the Commission’s functions and powers. It also implies that Standing Orders should prescribe an appointment procedure to the Assembly Commission. Standing Orders do not currently make provision for that.
In consultation with the Assembly Commission, the Committee on Procedures felt that the gap should be addressed, and the amendment does that. The Assembly Commission has approved the proposed Standing Order, and it has also been scrutinised by the Assembly legal adviser.
The proposed Standing Order raises several issues. The first relates to the number of members of the Commission. As stated in section 40(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the number of members, in addition to the Speaker, should be five. The Assembly, and the Committee on Procedures, are content that the number should remain as is outlined in the Act.
The proposed Standing Order outlines eligibility for appointments to the Assembly Commission and the procedure for filling vacancies, should they arise. The Assembly Commission and the Committee on Procedures felt that the Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees should not be eligible for appointment to the Assembly Commission. The Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee should also not be eligible. That measure is to ensure that there is no potential conflict of interest with the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee.
The demands and time imposed on the Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of the Statutory Committees meant that it would be unreasonable to expect them to find the additional time required to sit on the Assembly Commission. It was also considered unreasonable that those Members already in receipt of an allowance as office holders should not receive a further allowance for membership of the Assembly Commission.
One final condition that is being incorporated is that appointments to the Commission should require cross- community support. That was suggested by the Assembly Commission, because it is there to represent the interests of all Members of the Assembly, and not party interests. Appointments to the Assembly Commission should require the support of all sides of the House. That was considered to be a greater safeguard to the position of the Commission.
The purpose of the proposed Standing Order is to address a provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that Standing Orders should specify an appointments procedure to the Assembly Commission. The proposed Standing Order makes provision for that in an open and transparent manner.

Rev Robert Coulter: As a member of the Assembly Commission, I support the amendment. The proposed Standing Order establishes a clear and unambiguous mechanism for appointments to the Assembly Commission. It provides for the initial appointment of the body corporate at the beginning of a new mandate, and also allows for the appointment of individual Commissioners as vacancies arise.
The Committee on Procedures consulted with the Assembly Commission on the wording of the proposed Standing Order, and it is the Commission’s view that the proposed Standing Order is fit for the purpose.

Ms Jane Morrice: I wish to raise two points. The first concerns the number of members of the Commission. I would appreciate clarification, but I assume that this does not preclude any proposal on behalf of the Assembly to increase the number of members of the Commission, if that is the Assembly’s wish.
Secondly, I seek clarification on the issue of those members of Committees, especially of the Public Accounts and Audit Committees, who, according to the proposed Standing Order, are not eligible to stand for election to the Commission. Mr Conor Murphy said that there was a potential conflict of interest, and I would like clarification as to what sort of conflict of interest there could be for a member of the Public Accounts or Audit Committees, as those who hold office on those Committees receive no payment for their involvement. What about other Committees? Correct me if I am wrong, but do the Committee on Procedures and other Committees not fall into that category?

Mr Duncan Dalton: I support the amendment. Essentially, it is a tidying-up measure. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 made provision for the appointment of a specified number of members to the Commission. Procedures, and Standing Orders should have stated how they would be appointed. The House has not made Standing Orders to deal with that situation. It has been remiss of us, and we should use this opportunity to correct it.
I shall address the points raised by the Member for North Down, Ms Morrice. The 1998 Act, not the Committee on Procedures, specifies the number of members of the Commission. The membership of the Assembly Commission is relatively large compared with the House of Commons. Its Commission has five members to deal with 652 MPs, as opposed to our five members who deal with 108 Members, and possibly even less in the future.

Ms Jane Morrice: I understand that the 1998 Act refers to "at least five" members. There is no specific point that refers to only five members.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I apologise. The Member is correct. The 1998 Act refers to "at least five" members. The Commission does not necessarily have to have only five members. However, the 1998 Act clearly indicated that the Commission was expected to have five members.
I assure the House that none of the procedures that are being recommended today are particularly contentious. I hope that the House will agree the proposed Standing Order by means of a cross-community vote, and that, as a result, the Commission will represent the entire House in dealing with its administrative matters. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I also thank the Rev Robert Coulter for welcoming the proposed Standing Order on behalf of the Commission.
I shall respond to the points made by Jane Morrice. There is nothing to prevent the Assembly from changing the number of members of the Commission. The 1998 Act specifies the number as
"5 or such other number as may be prescribed by standing orders".
The Commission has been in operation since devolution, and the number of members has not presented a problem. No representations to increase the number of members on the Commission have ever been made to the Committee on Procedures. If Members feel strongly about the matter, the Committee will revisit it, and it will be for the House to decide.
The Committee felt that membership of the Public Accounts Committee or the Audit Committee was incompatible with membership of the Commission due to the nature of the Commission’s powers and functions, such as entering into contracts and investing money. That may cause conflicts of interest or lead to suspicion about a Member’s probity.
The Committee also specified that Ministers and junior Ministers should not sit on the Commission. It would be difficult for them to find time to attend meetings, and it would be unreasonable for them to receive yet another addition to their salary for membership of the Commission. The Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees already receive an addition to their salary and are not eligible, so there is consistency between their treatment and that of junior Ministers.
With regard to Chairpersons of other Standing Committees, the Committee on Procedures and the Commission are agreed that a holder of an office that already attracts an addition to his or her salary should not be eligible for an office that would qualify for a further addition.
The Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) is due to report in April, and it may recommend that Chairpersons of Standing Committees should qualify in the same way as Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees do at present. If the recommendation is made, and passed by the Assembly, that Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Standing Committees should receive an additional salary, the Committee on Procedures will undertake to look again at the Standing Order to reflect that.
I trust that I have answered most of the questions. I would like to thank Mr Dalton and other Members for their comments. The Standing Order sets out a clear method of appointment for Members to the Assembly Commission. It redresses a gap in Standing Orders and fulfils the requirement of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It also reinforces the importance of the Assembly Commission as a body to represent the interests of all Members, not only those of the larger parties.

Mr Speaker: I have been listening to what Members have said, as I usually do, and, before calling on the House to vote, I would like to clarify something. It does not seem to me that there is a reference to members of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee, but to the Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee. There was an interchange between the Chairperson and a Member about members of those Committees. I wish to draw attention to the fact that when Members are voting, they are voting only on the question of Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons, not on the question of Members.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am the Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee. My understanding of my responsibilities, and the Committee’s responsibilities, does not match up with what the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures has just said. What is the procedure? The Audit Committee does not award contracts to anyone. Its responsibility is to ensure that the Northern Ireland Audit Office has its budget. We have no responsibility other than to ensure that it has its budget and that its estimates come in at a certain level.

Mr Speaker: That would be a legitimate point to put in a debate, and it would be a case for tabling an amendment. However, from an order point of view, what is on the Order Paper is competent. It may not be pleasing, and the arguments adduced may or may not be welcome or acceptable, but there is nothing out of order about the amendment. I simply wanted to ensure, on the other matter, that Members were clear about what they were voting on, because there appeared to be some lack of clarity.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The reasons for excluding the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee are wrong, and they are legally wrong in terms of Standing Orders with regard to responsibilities.

Mr Speaker: From an order point of view, it is perfectly legitimate to put down what is here. It is perfectly competent. The arguments adduced for doing so may be a subject of dispute. I understand what the Member is saying, and if the Member or any other Members wish to change it that will require the tabling of an amendment — clearly not in this debate but at a subsequent time. That would be the proper way to address the question. I now hope that everyone is clear about what they are voting on, and I will, therefore, put the question. As this is an amendment to Standing Orders, the vote requires cross-community support if it is to pass.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
"74. Appointments to The Assembly Commission
(1) The Assembly shall by resolution appoint the prescribed number of Members of the Assembly to be members of the Commission.
(2) Appointments under paragraph (1) shall be made within 28 days after the first sitting of the Assembly after dissolution.
(3) Any resolution under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support.
(4) In the event of a vacancy occurring, the Speaker shall, as soon as may be possible, inform the Assembly of the vacancy. Any vacancy shall be filled by resolution of the Assembly within 28 sitting days of the vacancy occurring.
(5) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a member of the Commission if he/she holds a relevant office.
(6) Where a Member of the Assembly is appointed to a relevant office he/she shall forthwith cease to be a member of the Commission.
(7) A Commissioner may at any time resign by giving notice in writing to the Speaker.
(8) In this Standing Order a relevant office means a Minister, a junior Minister or a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of:
(a) a Statutory Committee;
(b) the Public Accounts Committee;
(c) the Audit Committee."

Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment: report on the energy inquiry

Mr Pat Doherty: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment on its inquiry into the Energy Report (3/01R) and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to implement the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.
A Cheann Comhairle, as Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I have the task of presenting the Committee’s report to the Assembly. In the time allocated, I shall give a brief overview of the report, commenting on the key points and highlighting some of the major recommendations contained in it.
My colleagues on the Committee will comment on the finer details. I wish to take this opportunity to welcome back the Committee’s Deputy Chairperson, Sean Neeson, after his recent illness, especially as it was he who primarily led us to embark on this inquiry.
When the Committee began its inquiry, it did not anticipate the sheer magnitude of the task. It was a lengthy and wide-ranging inquiry that took almost one year to complete. The Committee received 32 written submissions from organisations and individuals, and 29 oral evidence sessions were held with groups and individuals. Those sessions involved a wide range of bodies, including the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the energy regulator, energy producers and suppliers, business associations, district councils, academics and voluntary groups. They came from as far away as the USA and Venezuela. The Committee was overwhelmed by the volume and quality of the evidence received. Committee members wish to place on record our gratitude to all those who submitted evidence, both oral and written. That evidence helped to inform, to a large extent, the many important recommendations that are made in the report. I also wish to place on record members’ gratitude to the Committee Clerk, her staff and the Assembly research staff for their invaluable help to the Committee throughout the inquiry and in the preparation of the report for publication.
It will be helpful to Members if I outline the background to the report. During the Committee’s previous inquiry into ‘Strategy 2010’, many witnesses commented on the high cost of electricity in the North and how that affects the competitiveness of local businesses. The Committee wanted to examine the causes of high electricity prices and what could be done to make electricity cheaper for consumers. In addition, proposals had been floated that a new combined-cycle gas-turbine power plant should be built at Coolkeeragh. However, that proposal would require a natural gas pipeline to be constructed from the Greater Belfast area to the north-west. The Committee wanted to assess that proposal, and examine how natural gas could bring social benefits to our communities, not least in tackling fuel poverty. The signing of the Kyoto protocol has committed us to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve that, renewable sources of energy must be developed, which in turn have great employment potential. The Committee wanted to examine the issue and assess the potential growth of that sector.
I shall now address some of the key issues that were identified by the Committee during the inquiry. The high cost of electricity for consumers is primarily a direct result of contracts that were made at the time of privatisation in 1992. Those fixed inflation-proofed contracts will remain with us until 2012 and have brought significant profits for the generation companies and for Viridian/NIE. Any efficiencies made by those companies have not been passed on to the consumer, but instead have gone to shareholders as profits. The buying-out of the contracts has been the subject of much debate and discussion in the Committee. The idea that the contracts should be bought out by a consumer bond has its attractions. However, that would simply replace one long-term contract with another. It would mean an immediate reduction in electricity prices, but it could result in the long-term price being higher than if the market were allowed to dictate prices after 2012. I shall return to that issue later.
The extension of natural gas provision to the north- west was identified by the Committee as a key issue for the future of electricity generation at Coolkeeragh, as well as for the eradication of fuel poverty in the towns along the route of the pipeline. The Committee considered the eradication of fuel poverty as a high priority for the Executive to tackle.
A total of 170,000households in the North are considered to be fuel poor. That equates to a scandalous 28% of homes in which existing conditions mean that more than 10% of the income is spent on fuel. The Committee fully endorses the Assembly’s earlier decision to raise the energy efficiency levy to an average of £5 per customer. The revenue raised — £3·25 million a year — will go towards introducing measures to eradicate fuel poverty within 14 years.
Another key issue for the Committee is to improve energy efficiency. That includes: the need to upgrade building regulations; better awareness for consumers in the use of energy efficient appliances; the development of combined heat and power plants — including consideration of the use of domestic waste as a fuel source; incentives for industry to introduce greater efficiency measures; and the promotion of more energy efficient transport.
The development of renewable energy sources is another key issue identified by the Committee. Renewable energy comes from various sources — from the heat and light of the sun to the use of agricultural waste in the biogas process. The Committee is concerned that present pricing regimes and structures militate against the development of renewable energy. OFREG is looking at the issue. The Committee made a total of 45 recommendations under five headings. I shall concentrate on the main recommendations.
Identifying the reasons for high electricity costs was relatively straightforward. How to address them was an altogether different story. The Committee acknowledges that its recommendations will not have an immediate effect on electricity prices, but it is confident that, in time, they will make a significant difference.
I shall mention two recommendations. The first involves the buying-out of the long-term generation contracts. Almost every submission that was made to the Committee mentioned the need to take action on those contracts, which are the primary reason for high electricity costs in the North. The Committee considered the issue at length, especially the idea that contracts should be bought out by consumer bonds financed over a long period. The advantage is that electricity costs would be reduced almost immediately, subject to Government legislation. The main difficulty is that the scheme would replace one long-term contract with another lasting for 10 years, 30 years or 40 years. Prices would fall after 2012 when the current contracts expire and many critics argue that the bonds effectively charge the consumer twice for the same thing.
After much debate, the Committee decided that as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was about to embark on a consultation exercise on its energy strategy, we would await the outcome of that exercise before making a final decision. The Committee acknowledged that the bonds issue would require a more detailed examination than Committee resources would allow; for example, the production of a full economic appraisal. The Department should, therefore, take the lead in addressing that crucial issue. The Committee is keen that it is resolved one way or another as quickly as possible.
The second recommendation relates to the setting up of a cross-departmental ministerial task force to develop a strategy to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty in our society. It is a scandal that in the twenty-first century, 170,000 homes in the North are considered fuel poor. The Committee strongly believes that the Executive must tackle that issue. It is cross-cutting, because social and economic development, health, housing, equality of opportunity and employability issues are all connected to fuel poverty. We ask the Executive to examine that high priority matter.
The Committee agreed that energy efficiency is an important aspect of energy matters. It covers a wide range of related topics from building regulations to electrical appliances and from the disposal of domestic waste to efficient electricity generation. The Committee made several recommendations, which, if adopted, would help to reduce energy waste and, therefore, contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases. In addition, the use of domestic waste as a fuel source would also contribute to a reduction in the problems associated with landfill sites.
Perhaps the most exciting aspect of energy is the potential created by the development of renewable energy sources, although that is fraught with difficulties. There are many technical problems to be overcome, but the most serious is that of the public perception of renewables, especially wind turbines. Renewable energy is an exciting area, because it is at a relatively early stage of development here. It offers plenty of opportunities, not least in the creation of jobs and the regeneration of rural communities. There is much yet to be done, and, to assist the development of that fuel source, the Committee recommends a target of 35% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020, with an interim target of 15% by 2010.
Several other recommendations were specifically designed to stimulate and enhance renewable energy provision. A key recommendation involves the raising of public awareness of issues surrounding "green" electricity, which would assist in increasing public demand for renewable energy.
The Committee also recommended that the establishment of a renewable energy agency be considered. Although the Committee is reluctant to add more bureaucracy to the Administration, it felt strongly that there is merit in having a statutory body to co-ordinate the Government’s strategy for the development of renewables. The creation of such an agency would send clear signals to the industry and the public that the Government are serious about their declared commitment to the environmental issues of the Kyoto protocol and subsequent targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
On employment, there are job opportunities in research and development, and in the construction, installation and maintenance of machinery. In rural communities, biogas technology offers real possibilities for job creation and crop diversification for farmers growing willow coppice. Gasification may also assist to solve the problem of the disposal of animal waste. All relevant Government bodies must open their eyes to the potential of that aspect of renewable energy for rural communities and adopt a co-ordinated approach to realise that potential.
The extension of the natural gas network beyond Greater Belfast has been discussed for some time. Although the extension of the pipeline to the north-west has been linked to the development of a new electricity plant at Coolkeeragh, the Committee agreed that there is a strong social need to bring gas to more homes. That would be a major factor in eradicating fuel poverty in many homes along the route of the pipeline. To make extensions to the pipeline viable, the Committee agreed that postalisation of electricity and gas costs is required and must be borne equally by commercial and domestic consumers to ensure that all consumers pay the same tariff, irrespective of their location.
Recent increases in the capacity of interconnection between Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) and the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) in the South means that the NIE system no longer works in isolation. There will soon be 940 megawatts of interconnection between the two systems. The gas networks will also be joined in the future, with a planned gas connection between Gormanstown and Belfast. The Committee welcomes those developments, as a larger all-island network with connections to GB and Europe will open up electricity and gas markets to greater competition.
12.00
More interconnection must be developed. That needs to be done in tandem with common approaches to application, fiscal regimes, chartering policies, effective regulations and strong consumer protection. A single transmission system operator across the all-Ireland market would have clear benefits. Active consideration must be given to that recommendation.
Although there are no nuclear power installations on the island of Ireland, we are much affected by the environmental impact of nuclear plants on the west coast of Britain. The Committee was unanimous in its recommendation that Ireland remain a nuclear-free zone and in the call for the closure of those plants in GB that have a great impact on people in Ireland. It seems inappropriate that such vast sums of money are spent by the UK Government to support the nuclear industry when a cleaner, greener form of energy is available. The sum spent on the development of renewable energy is paltry when compared with that spent on nuclear energy. The Committee, therefore, also recommends that Government subsidies to the nuclear industry should be redirected to renewable energy.
The complex issues that the Committee dealt with in its inquiry, and its subsequent recommendations, require careful consideration by Members, the Minister, the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and others who are affected directly by the report. Global issues, such as global warming, require global solutions. Everyone must play his or her part in the protection of the environment for future generations. In doing so, we can redevelop the agriculture industry and rural communities, creating employment opportunities for thousands of people and position ourselves as a world leader in those technologies.
Energy is an issue that touches all our lives. We owe it to our constituents to ensure that affordable electricity and heating is available at home and in the commercial world. The report can make a difference in bringing down electricity prices, eradicating fuel poverty and contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
I have outlined the main points arising from the inquiry, and I commend the report to the House.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has allocated three hours for the debate. If Members, on average, restrict themselves to 10 minutes or so, almost everyone who has put his or her name down so far will have a chance to speak. I hesitate to set a time limit, because some Members may be able to be more concise than that, and others may need a little more time. However, I remind the House that if Members do take more time, with the result that others do not get to contribute, they can speak to their party Colleagues who spoke for too long.

Mr Sean Neeson: First, I want to thank the Chairperson for his kind remarks. I also want to thank all the Members who contacted me recently with regard to my illness. I am pleased to say that I am on the road to recovery.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Sean Neeson: I could not resist the opportunity to be in the House today to contribute to the debate on the presentation of the report. I have been interested in energy for many years. I am delighted that the Committee has spent a long time in dealing with such an important and complex subject.
I thank the Committee Clerk and her staff for their help, the Assembly’s research staff, and the Committee’s Special Adviser.
This report is long overdue. During the years of direct rule, energy was not given the attention that many of us thought it deserved. Hence, we are now dealing with issues and problems that would not have arisen had there been greater scrutiny, especially on the part of public representatives.
In 1999, before power was formally devolved to the Assembly, I organised an all-party group of Assembly Members to meet the then Industry Minister, Adam Ingram, to discuss the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the north-west. The cross-party group came into being because Assembly Member Bradley had raised the issue of the pipeline in the Assembly. The then Minister was impressed that Assembly Members were uniting on a cross-party basis to deal with a specific issue of importance to them and their constituents. We discussed extending the natural gas pipeline to the north-west and also to the canal corridor, Craigavon and so forth. The Department took those issues on board.
I welcome the recent decision to grant licences to extend the natural gas pipeline from Carrickfergus to Derry, and also to the south-east of the Province. That is an important commitment to extend the gas pipelines to areas of the Province that have been unable to avail of natural gas. The fact that an extra 32-35% of the Northern Ireland population could be provided with natural gas is to be welcomed.
The Committee would have preferred that the gas pipeline be extended North/South. A series of meetings on that issue were held. Although the outcome will not be reached as speedily as we would have liked, particularly the provision of natural gas to the south-east, an important commitment remains.
The £30 million budgeted by the Executive, plus £8 million from the Irish Exchequer, towards the gas pipelines represents an important commitment to the projects and the extension of the availability of natural gas. However, I am slightly concerned at how the projects have been clouded by the so-called "investment appraisal" that was mentioned in the House. That issue must be clarified, but the important point is that we are creating a level playing field for consumers in Northern Ireland. It is only right that both domestic and commercial consumers should benefit from natural gas. The Committee and I are committed to the principle of postalisation. If that is to be done, the costs should be borne by commercial and domestic consumers.
The aim is to develop a high-efficiency gas power station that will not only serve the north-west, but can become part of the island energy strategy, which the Committee and the Department fully support, and which comprises east-west dimension also.
It is ironic that almost 20 years ago, in the last Assembly, I rose, close to this spot, to support the proposal to extend the natural gas pipeline from Kinsale to Northern Ireland. I was barracked and heckled at Northern Ireland’s readiness to burn anything from the Irish Republic except the "green" gas. We now have an opportunity to burn "blue" gas from Scotland — how times have changed.
A major customer is essential to the success of the natural gas pipeline to the north-west. I welcome Coolkeeragh’s involvement as a major customer and the fact that, in addition to the public commitment of £38 million, we have the prospect of a contribution of more than £200 million from the private sector. That will lift the pressure that affects electricity prices throughout Northern Ireland.
I am pleased also, because much activity related to Northern Ireland’s energy is concentrated in my East Antrim constituency. In addition to Ballylumford and Kilroot, a new gas-fired power station is under construction, there is a new gas interconnector in the area and the Moyle interconnector recently came on-stream.
Committee members had planned to visit the Moyle interconnector on 6 March, but unfortunately other Assembly commitments will prevent us from doing that. However, we hope to visit the site soon because some issues must still be dealt with, most of which are environmental. The Department of the Environment and Northern Ireland Electricity have attempted to deal with them. Cheaper electricity from Scotland should, primarily, be for the benefit of Northern Ireland consumers. Currently, several customers for power from the Moyle interconnector are based in the Republic of Ireland, but it is important that benefits are also felt in the North.
One of the more contentious issues dealt with by the Committee was whether, given its location, Kilroot should use Orimulsion to generate electricity. Members had concerns for the environment, but as part of our study we visited an Orimulsion-fired power station in Denmark and were very impressed by its standards of environmental protection. As someone with a power station in his own backyard, I am committed to using Orimulsion if the stringent guidelines of the AES Corporation are applied. That would lead to a reduction in Northern Ireland’s electricity prices.
It is important that the Assembly has oversight of the guidelines for environmental protection, but Carrickfergus Borough Council will also be responsible.

Mr Jim Wells: Can the hon Member confirm that Carrickfergus Borough Council members visited the Orimulsion- burning plant in Denmark and that they too returned with the view that it is an optional means of electricity generation at Kilroot?

Mr Sean Neeson: I agree. We should seriously consider that option. We do not want to put all our eggs in one basket, as we did in the 1970s and 1980s, and if we were to depend totally on the use of natural gas to fire power stations, we would fall into the same trap. There are other options for generating electricity. Mr Speaker, I hope that you will bear with me. I have missed a few weeks in the Chamber. I would like —

Mr Speaker: Undoubtedly, that is the case, but the Member must understand that there is no leeway from the Business Committee on the amount of time available for the debate. Therefore, I urge the Member to take that into account and to try to bring his remarks to a close in order to enable all other Members who wish to contribute to do so.

Mr Sean Neeson: Our problems were inherited as a result of the privatisation that went ahead with little political consultation with the parties in Northern Ireland. At the time, I made a submission on behalf of my party. I have serious concerns about the suggestion of using consumer bonds as an easy fix. Although there may be short-term benefits, the consumer will have to pay in the long term. We must address ways to deal with the problems, while ensuring that the full burden is not placed on consumers.
I hope that the Assembly supports the report. The Department has issued a consultation paper, and I hope that the Minister and the Department pay heed to the issues that the Committee is raising today.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome the report and congratulate the Committee on its production. It is a complex report, and, as someone who is not a member of the Committee, I have reservations and a certain amount of timidity about discussing it. In order to be "beyond reproach" like Caesar’s wife, I should declare a small interest, which is stated in the Register of Members’ Interests. I own a few hundred shares in Viridian, but I assure the House that that will not affect my conclusions.
The report states that major consideration on the options available to reduce prices will be delayed until the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment produces its paper. As the previous two Members who spoke said, the Committee’s report fully explains the workings of consumer bonds. If those could be made to work, they would reduce prices for the rest of the decade. However, thereafter prices would be higher than in the absence of the bonds.
Therefore, should we opt for consumer bonds? From a political viewpoint, they have some attraction. Prices would fall in the near future, and, as Members know, future generations cannot vote in the 2003 election. However, in principle, the issues are more complex than that. In any case, given the current state of the financial markets, could a sufficient number of consumer bonds be sold? Many hundreds of millions would have to be sold to generate a sufficient income stream.
There is much to be welcomed in the report. Paragraph 3.3 refers to the issue of tightening building regulations so that energy efficiency is stressed more than in the past.
For example, recommendation 4 states that domestic consumers should not cross-subsidise large-scale, predominantly industrial users of electricity as they have done in the past. Recommendation 15 states that the existing five-year derogation for natural gas from the climate change levy should be lengthened to 10 years.
I doubt that the report has established that a cost efficiency would necessarily be achieved, by having a single transmission operator for both the Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland markets, as suggested in recommendation 43. However, I would have liked the report to develop another aspect of the all-island energy market: I would like the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, with his Southern counterparts, probably through the North/South Ministerial Council, to attempt to ensure that Northern Ireland firms are increasingly able to either build or take over power stations in the Republic of Ireland. The market in the Republic of Ireland has been booming and is nearing capacity. It therefore needs to build more power stations, or, should we have a surplus in production, to buy electricity from Northern Ireland.
With regard to the liberalisation of ownership of generation capacity on both sides of the Irish border, one problem is that the Irish generator, the Electricity Supply Board (ESB), is still state-owned, and therefore does not compete on a level playing field with its Northern Ireland counterparts. I like the suggestion in the report that, as far as possible, we should copy the Nord Pool idea, which is how the small Scandinavian economies have managed to link their energy markets. We should make the most of the increasing number of electricity and gas connectors, across the border and across the Irish Sea. For the first time, it is possible for Northern Ireland to tap into the wider United Kingdom and European Union energy networks.
In general, the report’s 45 recommendations are supported by good evidence, and I commend the Committee for that. The apparent exception, which the Chairperson of the Committee mentioned, is the first recommendation, which concerns nuclear power. If I have interpreted it correctly, the recommendation in effect calls for, among other things, the eventual closure of the nuclear industry in Great Britain. I am no fan of nuclear power, and it is likely that, since the 1950s, the nuclear industry in Great Britain has not been economically viable. If operators had been forced to pay the full costs of the production of the electricity, particularly the decommissioning costs of power stations, they would not have balanced the books.
However, the issue of when the UK should withdraw from nuclear power generation is a complex one. The report has not addressed that properly despite this prominent recommendation. The report does not consider the impact of rapidly squeezing nuclear electricity production in meeting the Kyoto target. The Kyoto target relates to carbon dioxide production from fossil fuels. Furthermore, the report does not consider the fact that the production of fossil fuels is not an entirely safe option. Regrettably, people die in the production of coal, gas and oil. It is often argued that the nuclear industry is not safe, but those industries are not perfectly safe either.
In general, I congratulate the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment on the report, and I support the motion.

Mr Speaker: At this stage, rather than call a Member who is likely to be interrupted, I suggest that the House, by leave, suspend until 2.00 pm, when we will complete this three-hour debate.
The sitting was suspended at 12.25 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Many issues have already been covered, and one of the disadvantages of being the fourth or fifth Member to speak is that some of the best points have already been made. However, much more remains to be said than could ever be covered in one debate.
When the Committee began its inquiry, it expected it to last six to eight weeks. It found some interesting aspects under every stone it upturned. The underlying motivation for all the Committee’s questions and actions was its quest for a good reliable energy supply at a reasonable price. From the outset, the Committee was pushed towards the inquiry by a steady chorus of complaints from industry and commerce, and from energy users in general, about the punitive price of electricity.
I make no apology for repeating core points that have already been made by other Members, because the Assembly will be forced to revisit the energy supply issue, probably once a year, for the next 10 years, until matters are sorted out. It will take 10 years to get to grips with the fallout from the pseudo-privatisation of 1992.
For far too long, we have neglected the issues that surround our electricity supply and related energy-efficiency issues. We are now paying a high price for that. If we continue to neglect those serious issues, the price may become even higher. The crucial issue that underpins the debate is the scandalously incoherent contracts that were handed out to the generators in 1992 by the then Department of Economic Development. In effect, the new and private owners of the power stations received a licence to print money. In plain man’s language, those contracts have ensured that, in most cases, electricity prices are double what they should be, especially for domestic users, who are the most vulnerable.
It is no exaggeration to say that power station owners were given a licence to print money. As I understand it, contractual arrangements were put in place so that the generating stations would be overpaid for producing electricity. They are also generously paid for standing by in case they are needed to produce electricity and for any increase in fuel costs. They only thing that they do not get paid extra for is scratching themselves occasionally, should the need arise. They appear to have the contracts so well tied up that there is little opportunity to unpick them.
We await the imminent publication of the Department’s paper, entitled ‘Towards a new energy market strategy for Northern Ireland’. I welcome guidance from the Department on how we should get to grips with cutting energy costs.
Sooner or later we have to decide whether to buy out the overgenerous parts of the generating contracts or hang on in until 2012. I have great difficulty with both options, because with each we lose out. Bonds have been suggested as a financial mechanism, a type of mortgage that would reduce prices in the short term by approximately 25%. However, that would create a debt that would have to be paid off between 2010 and 2030.
I resent having to consider buying out parts of those contracts and giving the generators a second golden handshake to the highly profitable contracts they already have. However, it might be penny wise and politically foolish not to do something like that. In California, some generating stations just pulled the plug and stopped working when they did not make a profit. Our old and efficient overpaid power-generating stations might hang on to their licences to print money until 2012 at the high prices of today and then, when forced to meet the real world and market prices, they might just crash out, collapse and dissolve themselves, and we would not want that.
There are several issues that I would like to deal with, but that is not possible in the time afforded to me, so I shall pick just a few. There is serious concern that domestic users are subsidising large industrial users and that as the market partially opens — it is 30% or 35% at present — large users can buy electricity in a relatively free or semi-free market, while domestic users are lumbered with the bulk of the penalties or charges for the guarantees that have been made to the generating stations. If our generating stations have received contractual promises that guarantee them a licence to print money for the next 10 years and the heaviest industrial users are allowed to buy their electricity on a more open market, the bulk of the burden falls to domestic users. That is unfair, and many pensioners live in fuel poverty as a result.
There are also the long-term contracts. No future Government, or anybody else, should let contracts that will tie us for 20 years without any allowance for changing circumstances. Mistakes were made in 1992, and the length of the contracts ties us to those mistakes. If the contracts had been for 10 years, or had been renegotiated every five years, we would have had a get-out clause.
In the medium to long term we must separate power procurement and transmission. I am not unduly critical of NIE, but if we are to pretend that we have an open market, we need an open market. We cannot have a consortium that appears to be privatised yet still has a monopoly.
During the 1990-92 privatising period, we went from a state monopoly to a privately-owned monopoly, with many guarantees underwritten by the state and Government. We shall continue to pay for those for many years to come.
When considering opening the market and liberalising the electricity market, another fundamental point is that we cannot have an open market if we do not have a market. Without interconnection, we shall not have a market at all.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr McDonnell, please draw your remarks to a close.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: We need a massive increase in interconnection with the Irish Republic and Scotland. We should also explore interest in an interconnector between the Republic of Ireland, perhaps in Dublin, and Wales. That market cannot be opened without access for the electricity flow.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Speaker has not imposed a time limit, but if I am to include everyone who has expressed a wish to speak, I must advise Members to keep their comments to 10 minutes.

Mr Jim Wells: I support the Committee’s report. I am delighted to see Mr Neeson, the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, back with us. As the hon Members will know, another member of the Committee, Mrs Annie Courtney, is still recuperating. We wish her all the best. I am sure that she will be reading our contributions to this debate on the Internet tonight.
This was a long and difficult report to prepare. It started out as a stroll around the energy market and suddenly became a marathon that went on for many months. I am slightly disappointed that it has not engendered the degree of enthusiasm among Members that I had anticipated. It rather reminded me of my time with the National Trust, when I used to give talks at Women’s Institutes. For 10 years, I was given a bog- standard request to talk about country houses, until one day I received an invitation to give a talk to a Women’s Institute near Magherafelt on threats to the global environment. I thought that I had finally arrived, and that people had recognised my ability. Therefore, I prepared what I thought was a wonderful talk about chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), global warming and all the major issues of the day. I gave the talk, and thought that it was fantastic.
There was a competition after every Women’s Institute meeting. On this occasion, the competition rewarded suggestions that would most improve the environment in Magherafelt. I thought that the winner would be a CFC recycling plant or a ban on hardwoods. There were 11 entries, and nine of those stated that what would most improve the environment of Magherafelt was the appointment of a traffic warden. My entire contribution had gone six feet over the heads of the ladies present.
In some respects, that is also my view on the report. The 98 Members who are not here have evidently concluded that there is such unanimity and agreement within the Committee that they do not need to come and contribute. That is regrettable. This is one of the most important issues that the Assembly will ever face. Energy is fundamental to everything that we do, not only for our industry and homes, but for our environment. However, it has not exactly been the hottest ticket in town.
The report is opportune; in fact, many developments in the energy field emerged while the report was being prepared. One major announcement was made after the report was completed — the proposal to have a 200-megawatt wind farm off the coast of north Londonderry, in Castlerock. That has major implications for the growth of renewables in the Province. It would be a welcome signal for the future if that proposal were to get off the ground.
I welcome the various promises made by the Minister that consultation papers will be issued. Indeed, one has already been issued by the director of OFREG on the issue of creating a level playing field for the sale of renewables. I understand that a major consultation paper is pending on the use of the bond to buy out the generation contracts. The Committee examined that on many occasions and ultimately could not decide whether we should commit ourselves to supporting the bond.
We approached the fundamental issue of how to finance generation contracts with a completely open mind. The Committee looks forward to engaging in the difficult and detailed debate that is required to decide what to do about that crucial issue. As the Member for South Belfast, Dr McDonnell, said, almost all of the argument on energy in Northern Ireland is based on the fact that the contracts given to the generators at privatisation were such that the Government did extremely well out of them. The consumer has been paying through the nose ever since. That issue must be tackled in the near future.
I welcome the Committee’s decision fully and enthusiastically to rule out forever, if possible, any prospect of nuclear power generation in Northern Ireland. As a representative for South Down, I am well aware of the enormous concerns that that community has about the impact of emissions from Sellafield. Therefore, we felt that it was important to put down a marker to say that that type of generation is unacceptable. It poses too many dangers and threats to the environment.
The Committee took a different view on Orimulsion, and I wish to deal mainly with that subject. I went into the debate deeply cynical about, and critical of, Orimulsion. I remember being telephoned by a company representative and telling him that if he was contacting me about Orimulsion I was not interested. That was my view based on media coverage of the issue.
However, even with that scepticism, I went to Denmark and saw electricity generation at the Kalundborg plant. I spoke to the Danish equivalent of Friends of the Earth and to the World Wildlife Fund. I spoke to other environmental groups in the area, and I examined all the papers. In addition, I asked Dr Andrew Galway, a leading scientist formerly of Queen’s University, to look at the science of Orimulsion, and the emissions and the environmental problems associated with it.
At the end of that process, I believe that Orimulsion should remain an option for electricity generation in Northern Ireland. I am surprised that I am taking that viewpoint, but that is based on the facts. Much of what has been said about Orimulsion has been slightly inaccurate. The statistics show that Orimulsion could lead to a significant reduction in generation costs in Northern Ireland — possibly up to 25% lower. Moreover, with proper technology and the installation of a flue gas desulphurisation plant, Orimulsion could lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, that must be done with the most modern technology.
Orimulsion is 2·7% sulphur, heavy fuel oil is 4% and coal is 2·5%. However, with the installation of a modern flue gas desulphurisation plant, we envisage a 95% to 97% reduction in sulphur emissions. That is a major environmental benefit that cannot be ignored. Moreover, with the use of electrostatic precipitation measures we can reduce particulate emissions significantly. We can also reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are the same as heavy fuel oil and 15% less than coal.
The danger of spillage from the tankers that come from Venezuela to Kilroot has yet to be investigated satisfactorily. It must be emphasised that we are talking about a small number of movements of very large tankers, rather than the hundreds of movements of smaller oil tankers that already occur in Belfast Lough. The Committee took a very responsible view on that. It said that it would proceed to consider Orimulsion as an option only if the environmental impact analysis stacks up, which will be a very important document, if the economic appraisal comes out in favour and if it is voted through by the Assembly. Therefore, there is a triple lock on Orimulsion.
It would be foolish for the Assembly to dispense with the option of Orimulsion. That could leave us totally dependent on gas as a major source of electricity generation. It took a great deal of debate in Committee to arrive at that compromise to which everyone has signed up. The Committee agreed — courtesy of heavy lobbying from Jane Morrice — that Orimulsion should not be allowed to stand in the way of a rapid growth in the use of renewables in Northern Ireland.
The Committee has signed up to a target of 15% renewable energy by 2010 and 35% renewable energy by 2020. Those are demanding targets, but they are the least that we can do in order to meet the obligations of the Kyoto protocol. That was an issue that the Committee had to think about long and hard. However, even if there is the potential for the production of 10,000 megawatts of renewable electricity in Northern Ireland, there will always be times when the wind does not blow. Today, for example, it might be difficult to generate enough renewable electricity to keep Northern Ireland going.
The physical problem in Northern Ireland is that electricity cannot be stored. The scientist who discovers how to generate huge amounts of electricity in the winter, store it in a huge battery and release it in the summer, when less renewable energy sources are available, will make a fortune. That science, however, does not yet exist. Therefore, supply has to be matched to demand during periods of peak wind flow and periods of calm. Whatever happens, fossil-fuel-burning electricity plants will always be necessary for those periods.
The questions are simple. Do we become entirely dependent on gas? Do we go down the route of coal, or heavy oil, which are greater pollutants, or do we retain the option of Orimulsion, the supply of which is guaranteed and cheaper, and which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Wells, please draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Jim Wells: For that reason, we agreed to retain Orimulsion as an option.
I am delighted that the report included a strong recommendation on the alleviation of fuel poverty. That is long overdue, and what is proposed could tackle the problem, and end it once and for all.

Ms Jane Morrice: I shall begin by declaring an interest. My sister is involved in an American energy company, which gave evidence to the inquiry. I have no financial interest in that company.
I wish to add my thanks to the Committee Clerk, her staff, our researcher and our expert adviser for the tremendous work that they all put into the production of the report.
During the inquiry, I came to the conclusion that to describe the energy industry in Northern Ireland as complicated must be the understatement of the year. Every time I turn on a switch, I think of transmission lines, grids, pylons and generators, and hundreds, if not thousands, of workers toiling day and night to ensure that I am connected. It is important that Committee members also pay tribute to those workers.
Each member of the Committee has his or her particular area of interest. Although the repetition of some points may have been somewhat boring at times, it is always valuable to make those points. It is well known that my area of interest is renewable energy.
There is no question that the recommendations on renewable energy, if implemented by the Minister, will open new doors for the potential of the renewable energy industry in Northern Ireland. The Committee Chairperson spoke about the establishment of a renewable energy agency with a pricing system that would regularise prices and bring them into line with modern realities. All those recommendations will be valuable in changing attitudes towards the use of energy and in encouraging people to use local resources properly.
The aspect of renewable energy in which I have most interest is wind, in particular offshore wind energy. Everyone realises that wind has never been in short supply in Northern Ireland and that it never will be in short supply. We also have tremendous amounts of water. If those elements were brought together and properly harnessed they could totally revolutionise the region’s industrial fortunes. That would place Northern Ireland back on the pioneering global technology map. Energy produced from offshore wind has the potential to breathe new life into Northern Ireland. However, the biggest challenge that we face is human energy, which we did not discuss much in Committee. Do we have the skills, the creative thinking, the innovation and the confidence to match the natural resources supplied by the earth? Northern Ireland’s advantages in that area are substantial.
We heard the Minister’s statement about Harland & Wolff and liabilities, and we are pleased that something is being done to help the yard with claims from employees. Shipbuilding skills are, of course, diminishing. However, let us not talk about shipbuilding; let us talk about marine technology. A company such as Harland & Wolff, with its knowledge of the sea, and the instruments and machinery that manoeuvre its depths, is perfectly positioned to pioneer this new technology for the good of the shipyard and for the good of Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has the edge in other areas — we have the combined research capacity of our two universities, especially in the areas of environmental science and engineering. An increased focus on research, development and innovation, and a greater appreciation of the growing world market in clean, green technology, would enable our universities’ capacity to expand. Another area of skills is our highly educated, youthful workforce, which, in the past, has tended to leave Northern Ireland in search of new opportunities. For 30 years we exported our greatest resource — our young people — and with those young people went their potential to bring new thinking, new ideas and new energy to these shores. We must give them a solid reason to stay.
The greatest opportunity that we have to reverse the downward spiral of our decline is the new beginning that is offered by devolution. We need positive, constructive leadership, the promotion of inspiration, innovation and creative thinking, and we desperately need collective self-confidence.
The winds of change are blowing in our direction. Our location on an island, off an island, off mainland Europe, gives us a passport to a healthier, wealthier, sustainable, economic and social development. However, do we have the human geography? I am not only talking about people skills, I am talking about leadership skills. Do we have the human energy to match that which the earth gives us?
When there were bad times in Northern Ireland, and people were leaving in their droves, the old joke was "Would the last person out please turn out the light". Those of us who stayed or came back believed for a long time that we were operating in complete darkness.
With devolved government the lights have been switched back on, and the spotlight is on us, our economic development and our ability to move forward. It is up to us, and it is our duty, to ensure that we never fall back to the dark days that we experienced in the past. I am taking poetic licence and moving slightly off the subject of energy when I talk about human energy, but that is just as important.
As we discovered with this inquiry, there is a lot more to do than just flick a switch to turn a light on. We need energy to build up our skills, our abilities and, above all, our confidence. We need to believe in ourselves again, we need to have pride in ourselves, and we can do it. As the Chairperson of the Committee said, we can lead the world in global technology in renewable energy. We have the resources, we have the skills, and all we need now is the will.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I place on record my thanks to the Committee Clerk and her staff, the research staff, the special adviser to the Committee and to all the people and organisations who gave evidence and worked with us. I look forward to working with those people and groups in the future.
There was a huge amount of work in the inquiry — much more than we anticipated. However, it was enjoyable and interesting — it is a fascinating subject — and we all learned a lot. We covered a wide range of issues, as can be seen from the report. The Committee was unanimous on some issues, for example renewable sources such as wind energy, which it was glad to welcome, and particularly, as Mr Wells said, the offshore wind farm off the north coast. All those are good, exciting plans with which the Committee is pleased to be involved.
On other issues such as Orimulsion — and this has already been mentioned — there was not complete agreement, but the recommendation shows that the Committee managed to come to a consensus on it. On health and environmental grounds not all of us were convinced about the efficacy of Orimulsion, but we believe that this recommendation comprises enough checks, balances and triple locks to ensure that the subject gets a proper airing and debate.
A key issue that came up time and again is generation contracts, which is the bad deal that was negotiated for consumers at the time of privatisation. Consumers here are still paying through the nose for the bad deal made then. The more the Committee examined this, the more we became concerned about the nature and effect of these contracts. Unacceptably high electricity prices in the North of Ireland are matched by unacceptably high profits. The Committee looked long and hard at various ways to deal with the generation contracts: do we go down the route of consumer bonds; should we look at more vigorous pursuit of the British Treasury, which was the main financial beneficiary of this deal; or should there be more exploration of legal action in Europe on grounds of anti-competitiveness?
As the inquiry progressed, Committee members became aware that we were probably not in possession of all the facts and so could not come to a fully informed decision. Further public airing of these matters and consultation are vital. That is why the Committee arrived at the conclusion in recommendation 2 that it would be content to await the outcome of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s consultation paper ‘Towards a New Energy Market Strategy for Northern Ireland’. The Committee will be taking a keen interest in this consultation process.
Time and time again, the critical importance of an all- Ireland energy market was raised. It became clear that it was illogical for a small island of five million people to have two separate energy markets. It was also clear that both home and business consumers in the North of Ireland are disadvantaged by high electricity prices. It makes sound economic sense to have a single all-Ireland energy strategy. Regardless of the political views and persuasions of the members of the Committee, they agreed with the notion and creation of an all-Ireland energy market, and our recommendations reflect that.
Another issue raised was the need to eradicate fuel poverty, and there is a responsibility on all of us to achieve that. The Committee supports increasing the energy efficiency levy to £5, as agreed by the Assembly. However, key to that is the need for the levy to be administered openly, so that everyone can really see people being taken out of fuel poverty in a quantifiable, rather than a piecemeal, way. The task force on fuel poverty must be cross-cutting and cross-departmental. Targets for eradicating fuel poverty must be set down and kept to. We can now see a clear way to deal with fuel poverty and finally eradicate it "once and for all", as Mr Wells said.
This report will, I hope, open up these issues. There are many matters to be debated and considered in further detail, but I commend the report to the Assembly.
Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David McClarty: I welcome the opportunity to debate the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s energy report. The Committee members and clerks worked hard to produce a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the twenty-first century energy market in Northern Ireland.
The report makes several key recommendations in respect of gas energy and the gas network extension. Specific recommendations concluded that
"The Committee supports the provision of a gas pipeline to the north-west and the conversion of Coolkeeragh Power Station to a combined cycle gas turbine."
"Any postalisation of both gas and electricity costs must be borne equally and equitably by all commercial and domestic customers."
And that
"Support should be sought from the European Union and other sources to meet the costs of current and future gas pipeline extensions."
There are many obvious and some less obvious reasons for the Committee’s supporting the gas network extension to the north-west of the Province. I will briefly mention some of them under four specific headings.
First, there is an economic imperative to bring gas to those parts of the country that have no access to that fuel source. The proposed northern gas corridor would encompass the main urban areas of Londonderry, Limavady, Coleraine, Ballymoney and Ballymena, which, combined, represent a substantial economic region with an even greater potential for employment, investment and business start-up rates than before. There are pockets of high unemployment, higher-than-average levels of multiple deprivation and below-average industrial diversity. There is a strong argument that a gas pipeline extension to these areas would be an incentive for further foreign direct investment and would facilitate the diversification of the local economy. It would also ensure a level playing field for attracting future inward investment to the Province. Industrial competition would improve, as a cheap and environmentally friendly fuel would be widely accessible.
Secondly, from an environmental point of view, the gas pipeline extension would significantly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, black smoke and nitrogen oxides. That would help the north and north- west of the Province to contribute to a cleaner environment in areas renowned for their outstanding natural beauty. The estimated net present value of the reduction in environmental damage costs is some £20 million over 25 years.
Thirdly, the Government have stated objectives on energy policy. The gas pipeline extension to the north- west would offer potential diversification of energy supply to almost one fifth of the population. Ultimately, that would increase the availability of natural gas to 65 % of the entire Northern Ireland population. Costs to consumers would be reduced by an estimated £10 million per annum over 10 years. Energy efficiency would improve also, because of the ease with which gas, as a fuel, can be controlled.
Perhaps the most compelling arguments in favour of the extension of the gas pipeline relate to social need. As a result of the pipeline extension, average annual domestic savings are estimated at £100 per household. That would contribute considerably to the reduction of fuel poverty, as some of the most deprived areas in Northern Ireland would be served by natural gas.
Failure to extend the gas pipeline would make the north and north-west more peripheral and less attractive to inward investment. The northern corridor area would be put at a disadvantage by comparison to Greater Belfast, and the region would be prevented from attaining some 2,000 person years of employment arising from the construction of a combined-cycle gas-turbine power station, gas transmission and distribution pipeline. Over 50,000 people who live in wards that are among the 15% most deprived in Northern Ireland would be excluded from the environmental, employment cost and associated benefits of natural gas.
For some unknown reason I am slightly biased towards the north and north-west of the Province. However, the arguments in favour of the gas network and its extension to those areas speak for themselves.
I want to comment briefly on two other recommendations in the Committee’s report. It is important that electricity and gas costs be borne equally among all consumers in Northern Ireland. It would be grossly unfair if, for example, consumers in Coleraine were asked to pay more than consumers in Belfast, just because of the increased cost of piping fuel to Coleraine. Therefore, postalisation of both gas and electricity costs must be equal and equitable for commercial and domestic consumers alike throughout Northern Ireland.
To help to finance the gas pipeline extension to the north and north-west regions, there should be a combined and concerted effort, along with other energy-emergent peripheral regions, to obtain European Union support for the project and for future pipeline extensions.
The proposals and recommendations in the report, which relate specifically to the gas network and pipeline extension, demonstrate a common sense approach to the development of our energy supply needs in the decades ahead. I commend the entire report to the Assembly, and I support the motion.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I support the report. I am relatively new to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee and have not taken part in the enquiry, but I am pleased to be able to comment on such an important issue. I commend the Committee on its inquiry and thank the officials for their help.
I want to deal with two aspects of domestic energy consumption. My Colleague Dr McDonnell and other Members have talked already about high energy costs. In order to realise Northern Ireland’s commitment to reducing worldwide emissions, a comprehensive strategy for energy efficiency across all sectors is needed.
The energy inquiry report makes several sensible recommendations for increasing energy efficiency. Paragraph 3.20 recommends that Northern Ireland building regulations should be amended to include major improvements and minimum standards in the provision for energy conservation. Many of us live in homes that were built 40 to 50 years ago, and some live in homes that are over 100 years old. The Assembly must examine building standards in order to bring them up to those in many parts of Europe. Houses that are built this year will still be standing in 80 years’ time, wasting as much energy as we are foolish to allow.
The report ensures that the public sector leads by example, making rigorous savings in energy use. The report also calls for energy efficiency improvements in the domestic setting, with energy linked to the rateable value of homes, and finance for homeowners — with which to make their homes more energy-efficient. Everyone, young and old, can play his or her part towards energy efficiency. The simple task of switching off unnecessary lighting and televisions in homes when not required is one way of saving energy and money. The Department for Social Development’s Warm Homes Scheme can play an important role in providing energy efficiency measures for low-income households. The Assembly must monitor the funding and eligibility of that programme to ensure that all those who need assistance can get it.
‘Energy Efficient Appliances’ recommends that concerted action be taken, both to raise public awareness of appliance labelling, and to ensure that that is underpinned by appropriately competitive retail prices for category "A" labelled appliances. It is estimated that in Northern Ireland less than 20% of our energy use is through efficient appliances. The report also recommends that the use of domestic rates be given further consideration as a fuel source for combined heat and power (CHP). A further recommendation, referring to power stations, recommends that all new gas power stations should be CHP stations. A presumption in favour of those stations when awarding contracts would help to achieve that. Combined heat and power plants should also be mandatory for planning approval for large developments such as hospitals, industrial estates, and so on.
The report also proposes that serious consideration be given to the regulation of domestic oil distributors. That is an important point, since — through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department for Social Development schemes — low-income tenants increasingly use oil to heat their homes. Although gas and electricity are regulated with regard to price, payment methods and customer service, oil companies are not expected to adhere to such regulations. Some oil distributors offer excellent services, but that is not widespread. Domestic customers must be protected.
The introduction of the climate change levy was widely criticised in Northern Ireland. The report recommends that the five-year derogation on that levy should be extended to 10 years for industrial natural gas users in Northern Ireland. Companies that have met energy efficiency targets should be given a rebate on the climate change levy. That sensible and important recommendation encourages companies to connect to the expanding gas network, particularly in areas such as west Tyrone, Omagh and Strabane.
Other Members mentioned fuel poverty. Twenty eight per cent of householders in Northern Ireland live in fuel poverty. That is equivalent to 170,000 homes. The Assembly cannot credibly claim that it is a functional devolved Government if it allows that scandal to continue. I support the report.

Mr Wilson Clyde: I support the motion and commend the report to the House.
Since spring 2001, the Committee has studied in earnest ways to reduce the cost of generating electricity — not only to exact the more efficient use of energy, but to bring about a significant reduction in greenhouse gases that arise from the production and use of energy. I have no doubt that the Minster will elaborate further on the need to bring about such a reduction in greenhouse gases, if Northern Ireland is to meet the targets defined within the Kyoto protocol by 2008-2010.
The report says much about the conversion of Kilroot power station to burn Orimulsion. Serious account of the environmental aspects of that move should be taken before it is pursued. The Assembly should note the potential of renewable energy, both in accessing it directly and as a means of generating electricity.
I draw Members’ attention to page 53 of volume I of the report, which describes the biomass process of producing heat for private use and electricity for sale. Willow, grown as a short-rotation crop, may be harvested as a fuel in a combined heat and power plant to produce both heat and electricity. Important jobs and opportunities may be provided through growing and harvesting willows, the processing of raw materials and maintaining CHP plants.

Mr Jim Wells: I am sure that the hon Member was alarmed, as I was, at Dr O’Hagan’s assertion that the Committee supported the development of an all-Ireland energy market. Does he agree that that is not the case? Nowhere in the report is there any endorsement of an all-Ireland energy market. The phrase that is used is an "all-island energy market" that will enable this part of the United Kingdom to buy and sell power from another state — the Irish Republic.

Mr Wilson Clyde: I acknowledge the Member’s point.
Among the environmental benefits of renewable energy are less waste in landfills, valuable habitats for wildlife and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. I commend the work of Rural Generation Ltd at Brook Hall Estate. The Committee saw a prototype gas generator that ran off gas from landfill sites on its visit to Brook Hall. I encourage the Department to look favourably upon "green" electricity and power.
The uptake of renewable energy in Northern Ireland must be increased. It would make an important contribution to driving down fuel poverty and making it a thing of the past in Northern Ireland. However, for such an outcome to be realised, the public sector is under a responsibility to lead the way in promoting the advantages of, and harnessing the potential for, greater use of renewable energy.
Much in the report is to be commended to the Assembly. I ask the Minister to attach significant weight to all its recommendations. I support its proposals, and look forward to their early implementation. I thank the Committee Clerk and her staff for compiling the report.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. As a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I commend the report to the Assembly.
The report covers all aspects of energy, including electricity costs, energy efficiency, renewable energy, gas networks and Orimulsion. However, the report does not sufficiently emphasise the importance of waste management, especially the use of waste in the production of energy and heat. Vast amounts of waste are produced across Northern Ireland and all over the world. Waste must be used in some manner, whether it is buried, burnt or reused. There must be more research into the use of waste products and their conversion into heat and energy.
The city of Gothenburg in Sweden is almost entirely heated by the incineration of city waste. It must be emphasised that modern incineration techniques are clean burning. There should be several plants in Northern Ireland to segregate waste into different categories and incinerate it, producing energy and heat. Different filters can be used, depending on the type of waste, to eliminate toxic fumes. If used in that way, waste can be converted efficiently and effectively into energy. That energy would be constantly transferred into a grid system or used to provide continuous hot water for nearby towns, cities or local industries.
Similarly, the establishment of anaerobic digesters enables animal waste to be used by converting slurry and other farm and food waste into biomass. The digested mass is returned to the land as a less toxic fertiliser than raw slurry.
Modern farming methods produce much waste, and the establishment of biomass plants, such as the proposed plant at Fivemiletown, is to be commended. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should consider, and assist financially, a network of digesters in that area.
The section of the report dealing with renewable energy states:
"When wind speeds are low then energy from biomass would need to be a significant proportion of the mix."
Windmills and biomass plants should therefore be used in conjunction with each other. All waste could then be restructured as a recognised product, with no unwanted and unused surplus, and as a vital component in the production of heat and energy, with liquid fertiliser as a by-product.
The analysis and correct utilisation of our food and animal products would end the advice given to farmers that slurry should be spread only at certain times of the year. Farmers are conscious of the environment. That analysis would enable the farmer to know exactly what he is putting on the land, thereby using the product more effectively and efficiently. The efficient and effective use of waste is of the utmost importance. What better way is there to produce energy to the benefit of all?
The report mentioned the Committee’s visit to Brook Hall Estate, where willows are cultivated and the biomass is used to produce heat, energy and power. The energy produced is used on the farm, and the excess is sold to the grid system. The price received is low —approximately only 2p per kilo — but perhaps negotiation could improve it. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has adopted a scheme to promote the growing of willows. I highlight the success of the process and recommend the use of such regeneration. It is a possible cash crop that would enable farmers to diversify. The process of converting willows into energy delivers such benefits to the farmer as additional income, the use of the biofilter by which the willow can be irrigated by either slurry or water from treatment plants, the production of semi-charcoal ash and the by-products of the gasification process, which can be used as fertiliser.
Wind turbines enable the use of free fuel in the production of energy. Some people consider them unsightly. That is probably how they were regarded when they were put up many years ago in Denmark. However, they are now a tourist attraction. That type of energy production would work well in many areas.
The report considered the use of Orimulsion at Kilroot power station. Its successful use in this country, as in others, would avoid dependence on gas or oil as a single-energy source. It is relatively cheap, and I am sure that further research would show that its use is safe.
With regard to the natural gas network, the fact that Lough Neagh lies between mid-Ulster and Belfast puts my constituents at a disadvantage, although it is vital in the supply of water to Greater Belfast. I urge the Minister to invest in biomass facilities in that densely agricultural rural area to ensure the more environmentally friendly production of energy.
In conclusion, I commend the report to the Minister. However, I recommend that financial assistance be given to facilitate the conversion of domestic and industrial waste products to energy and heat. That would benefit our people’s health and that of the environment. Biomass, biogas, renewable energy produced by wind turbines and the utilisation of waste are of vital importance, and I strongly recommend that they be further investigated, with the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland in mind.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I feel like a dysfunctional Don Quixote because, while Don Quixote tilted at windmills, I want to tilt at the people who tilt at windmills. I shall return to windmills later.
The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is to be commended for its report on the energy inquiry. It is a perceptive analysis of an issue that is of great importance to industry and commerce, and to families — all of which are burdened by punitive and excessive energy costs. To its credit, the Committee is sensitive to the suffering of the 170,000 or more households that are experiencing fuel poverty. In addition, it is not looking for cheap solutions to energy problems. Whatever profits that the big players in energy production might make, nothing is really cheap if the provision of the product brings with it threats to people’s health or damage to the environment.
I shall leave the economic and technical aspects of the report to those who are better qualified than I — most Members are better qualified than I — and express my contentment that the report demonstrates the Committee’s commitment to sustainable development, and that it takes an enlightened approach to the environmental implications of energy production and marketing.
The fact that the Committee comes out firmly against nuclear energy production and reprocessing, and that it is highly critical of the UK Government’s arrogant and irresponsible approach to those issues, is particularly satisfying.
The report highlights the fact that more than 60% of Northern Ireland’s greenhouse gases arise from the production and use of energy. To meet its obligations and targets for the reduction of those gases, it is essential that energy production from dirty sources be rapidly phased out and that only clean and environmentally friendly processes be encouraged or permitted. In that respect, I draw attention to an alarming proposal to mine up to 600 million tonnes of lignite, with the intention of using it to fuel a massive 600-megawatt power station. Lignite is an extremely dirty fuel. To permit that development would have a devastating impact on the natural environment. Added to that, the potential for air pollution is such that I urge the Committee to be firm in its opposition to such proposals, which strike at the heart of its declared objectives.
I am satisfied by the support that the report offers to the extension of gas pipelines. My memory is not what it used to be, but I believe that I was the first Member to raise the matter in the Assembly, in the hope that natural gas would be made more widely available to domestic and business users, and that a gas-fuelled power station could be developed at Coolkeeragh.
The report raises a raft of other environmental matters worthy of examination, but I shall limit my contribution to two further issues. I have serious reservations about the use of Orimulsion as a fuel in Kilroot or any other power station in these islands — sorry, Mr Wells.
I now return, as promised, to the windmills.

Mr Jim Wells: The hon Member stated that he is opposed to the use of Orimulsion. Will he tell the House why?

Mr Arthur Doherty: I have serious reservations about its use. The same reservations are contained in the report. I could expand on the issue. The Member knows more about it than I do, but I shall keep my reservations. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should not be amused by that.
Finally, as promised, I return to the subject of windmills. Land- and sea-based power-generating windmills are the most exciting and visible manifestation of the merits of renewable energy resources. As someone with an interest in, and concern for, all aspects of environmental protection, I am aware that some environmentalists are offended by the visual impact of windmills on our beautiful landscape. Hence, my earlier comments on windmill-tilters.
It is more than clichéd to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or that, in design terms, form follows function. It can be argued that the power-generating windmill is an elegant and restrained piece of design, as much in tune with our times as the master mills of La Mancha, which so upset Don Quixote, and the quaint and beautiful windmills of south-east England and the Netherlands were with their times. Windmills are certainly no more obtrusive than the thousands of high-tension power pylons and the myriad telecommunications masts that are menacingly mushrooming everywhere.
The squeaky-clean efficiency of the graceful, wind- powered mills should leave the most fervent environmentalist with a happy glow; they more than compensate for their visual impact. Some might even say that they brighten up and add interest to our dullest and most featureless hillsides. I support the motion.

Sir Reg Empey: I am not sure how much time you will permit me to respond, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a great deal of ground to cover. I shall try to address as many of the issues that Members raised as I can, after my initial remarks.
Like other Members, I welcome the report. Today’s debate has been notably mature. There are related issues that people could exploit and use to play to the Gallery. However, the amount of effort that the Committee put into the report over almost a year clearly indicates that all the issues are being taken seriously and dealt with in a mature and methodical way.
In moving the motion, the Committee Chairperson made it obvious that no blinding flash of light revealed how we should deal with the electricity costs and other issues. The Committee recognised the complexity of the subject, and the report itself is a complex document. I commend it to the public. This debate will not create a cheap headline; that should not diminish the fact that the report represents a great deal of work by many people over a long time. Their work will ultimately help to contribute to the solutions to our energy difficulties. I hope that the media cover the debate. I also hope that the public recognise that work is being done here, and that not all debates involve headline-grabbing play-acting, although many do.
Reference has been made to the 32 written submissions made, the 29 organisations involved, the visits that took place and the 30 issues that were raised in the submissions. Those issues have been grouped into five broad themes: electricity costs; improving energy efficiency; renewable energy; gas network extension; and an all- island market.
The report makes a total of 45 recommendations, not all of which are directed at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Some recommendations are directed at other Departments and at parties with a direct interest or involvement in the energy market. I shall respond formally to the report’s recommendations in due course, when I have consulted with Executive Colleagues. In the meantime, I wish to make some initial observations and to respond to some of the questions that Members raised.
It is almost one year to the day since I made a statement to the Assembly in which I reviewed progress on the energy front in the previous 10 years, assessed the current position, drew attention to the continuing historic and structural problems in the energy arena and outlined some initial thoughts on the actions that were needed to resolve those problems in order to create a more modern, efficient energy sector.
In particular, I indicated my intention to prepare a revised energy strategy for Northern Ireland. One of the main difficulties for policy-makers in that area is that the context in which decisions are taken continues to change. Progress is made, new issues arise, and little remains static. If we compare the Northern Ireland of today with that of 10 years ago, several significant differences are apparent.
Energy is now the responsibility of the devolved Assembly. There is increased worldwide concern about climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. The issue of fuel poverty is becoming much more evident, and it was mentioned by almost every Member who participated in the debate. The previous policy of a centralised, largely publicly- owned energy sector has been replaced by a policy of energy decentralisation based on private or community ownership. The outworking of that revised policy has yet to be completed. The development of a liberalised market in electricity and gas across the European Union has had, and will continue to have, major implications for the local market. Finally, the emergence in recent years of energy taxation and the associated subject of emissions trading may well have a major impact on our economic life.
Although the context may continue to evolve, it has not prevented progress being made. That includes further significant progress in the past year, most notably the endorsement of an extension to the natural gas network; the commissioning of the Moyle interconnector; the further opening up of the electricity market; the publication of the Ian Cope Associates reports on an all-island market; the renewables consultation exercise; and the announcement of the proposed first major offshore wind project off the north coast. I appreciate the wholehearted support and co-operation of the Committee on all those issues.
In the next few days, I plan to publish an initial consultation paper on a revised energy market strategy. The paper will canvass views on the shape, structure and content of a new energy strategy for the Northern Ireland of the twenty-first century. Having considered the responses to the paper, and also taken into account the Committee’s recommendations contained in its report, I plan to issue a revised draft strategy, and to introduce the associated legislation required to underpin that strategy, later this year. With the Members’ co-operation, I hope to have legislation dealing with the priority issues passed in this Assembly’s lifetime.
Some major problems remain, which the Committee has considered. It will be invaluable to have their helpful analysis and recommendations on solutions set out in the inquiry report.
Taking each of the five report themes in turn, I shall outline my initial thoughts on the action needed to address those problems. Electricity costs are probably the most intractable problem on my desk, and I take some comfort from the fact that the Committee sees no easy answer to that complex issue. I have asked my officials and the Regulator General for Electricity and Gas to give me an action plan to achieve an early and continuing reduction in electricity prices. I plan to say more on that crucial matter when clear options are identified, and I assure the Assembly that that will be sooner rather than later. Only last week, it took only a few major businesses in Northern Ireland to starkly underline the impact that energy costs have on competitiveness. I am, therefore, determined that the time for words is over and the time for decisive action has come.
Many of the report’s recommendations for improving energy efficiency fall within the remit of my Executive Colleagues. It will be necessary to consult them before I prepare my response to the report. The efficient use of energy will benefit not only industrial and domestic consumers, especially those on low incomes, but also the environment. Improved energy efficiency is not an option for Northern Ireland — it is a must.
My Department issued a consultation paper last autumn on the further exploitation of our renewable resources. The results of that consultation are currently being analysed. Harnessing new renewables potential must play a key part in progressing the energy agenda. My plans for the greater use of renewables, including revised trading arrangements and the possible introduction of renewables obligation, will be contained in the draft energy strategy statement planned for later this year.
My Department will also contribute to a study into the capacity of the electricity network to cope with increasing amounts of renewable energy, especially wind energy. My overall aim is to stimulate rapid deployment of renewable energy resources without an unacceptable increase in the price of electricity.
The announcement from the Executive and the Irish Government last autumn supporting the north-west and South/North gas pipeline project was probably the main and most exciting achievement of the past 12 months. The Committee, working in the background, played no small part in helping to achieve that important breakthrough, and I pay tribute to its efforts. The regulator has recently granted a gas conveyance licence to Bord Gáis in respect of the project, and I shall shortly ask the regulator to invite expressions of interest for the distribution of gas into towns along the pipeline route. Many Members have been pressing for that as it will indicate whether there is any interest in supplying gas to those towns.
On many occasions, I have made clear my commitment to the creation of a more integrated and competitive energy market on the island of Ireland, within a European context. I was grateful for the report published by IPA Energy Consulting last autumn. My counterpart in Dublin, Mrs O’Rourke, and I hope to announce an action plan arising from that report in the near future.
An all-island market is not a panacea for the problems in the local energy market, nor will the benefits of an all-island market appear overnight. A great deal of careful consideration must be given to the wide range of technical, financial and legal issues involved. It is vital that the transition to an all-island market is properly planned, bearing in mind that there is almost a public monopoly in the Republic and a privatised sector here. We must also remember that an energy market of five million people is fairly minute. Through Great Britain, major links to the EU must be maintained if we are to get the properly open market that we need.
The Committee has made an impressive number of detailed and wide-ranging recommendations. Approximately three quarters of them will fall to my Department for response, with the remainder falling to other Departments. My initial view is that many recommendations are sensible, including those on revised consumer representation arrangements, the greater use of renewable energy, the benefit of energy efficiency and the support for the extension of the gas industry. Others cause me more difficulty, including the recommendation that all new gas-fired power stations should be combined heat and power stations and the provision of grant aid to domestic consumers who are seeking to avail themselves of energy from renewable sources.
I shall reflect on the Committee’s report, and I shall seek the views of my ministerial Colleagues before preparing my formal response. It would be sensible if I were to take additional time to incorporate, where appropriate, the responses to the Department’s energy strategy consultation paper, which will be issued in the next few days. Responses to that paper will be requested by 30 April.
In his opening remarks, the Committee Chairperson set the scene for the report, but he and several other Members emphasised the issue of fuel poverty. The statistics are shocking — 28% of households fall into that category. An initial consultation paper on proposals for the new energy strategy and the accompanying legislation will include an invitation of views on a possible increase in the £2 levy, which is currently collected by NIE from customers for investment in energy- efficiency projects under the regulated scheme. We shall carefully consider recommendations in the light of responses and discuss them with the regulator — who has also recently consulted on the proposals — and with the Department of Finance and Personnel. A formal written response will be given to the Committee’s report.
I shall give details of an anecdotal case. In my constituency, Willowfield is a target area of the warm homes scheme, and it is twinned with Turf Lodge in west Belfast. A few weeks ago, I was present at the opening of a house that had all the benefits of the scheme.
Gas central heating had been installed. Extra insulation, loft installation, low-energy bulbs and electric kettles, and a whole range of other things were also installed. That was a fantastic job for the elderly resident, who no longer had to worry about bags of coal. It was much cheaper. The sad thing is that there are insufficient applicants for the scheme. We have not got the message through to the grass roots.
We were unable to implement the scheme in that area, even though funds were available. Therefore, money is not the only issue. We must get the message across to people. It is a fantastic scheme and a wonderful example of what can be achieved. There are savings in convenience, health and cost. The money is lying there, yet the Housing Executive is unable to spend it because of the insufficient number of applicants. That is something that we must take on board.
Like other Members, I am pleased to see Mr Neeson in his place again. I am aware of his long-term interest in the gas sector. I appreciate that his constituency plays a significant role in energy in Northern Ireland. However, one of the technical matters that he raised was that of postalisation. That may be double Dutch to many people. When people criticise us, they sometimes forget that there is postalisation for electricity. Does anyone seriously believe that it costs the same to get electricity to Carrickfergus as it does to Belleek? Of course it does not. However, is anyone seriously suggesting that Belleek residents should be charged the economic rate for getting electricity to them?

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Yes. [Laughter]

Sir Reg Empey: From the safety of the Malone Road, that was probably to be expected. [Laughter]. It is not something with which most Members of the House would agree.
Postalisation seems reasonable. Take the postal service. One stamp delivers everywhere, and it is exactly the same principle. The gas industry should not be discriminated against. Therefore, I fully support the concept.
Some people say that this will have an adverse impact on electricity prices. I say that to bring in gas will have a beneficial effect on electricity prices overall. There is a large fuel cost element in our electricity bills, and increases in fuel costs are automatically transferred to the customer. The more efficient the power stations are, the less fuel they use, and, therefore, less energy costs are transferred to the customer. Gas-fired electricity generation is more efficient than the old methods used in the 1960s and 1970s. There are benefits to be gained. I agree with the Deputy Chairperson that the process of postalisation should take place.
Dr Birnie raised several issues, including that of building regulations. That issue was also raised by Mr McMenamin. I shall come to that in a moment. Dr Birnie also said that I should deal with Northern Ireland companies’ ability to build power stations and to supply electricity in the Republic. He said that I should raise that issue at the North/South Ministerial Council with my counterpart there. I point out to Dr Birnie that energy is not one of the matters dealt with by the implementation bodies. There are purely ad-hoc arrangements between our two Departments. I am happy to draw any of those matters to the attention of the Department of Public Enterprise in Dublin. That can be done through a phone call.
Dr Birnie raised the issue of the Kyoto protocol and the nuclear side of things. I am aware of the concerns that people have about nuclear issues. One view expressed was that no electricity generated by nuclear power should come into Northern Ireland. Just as it is impossible to tell the difference between "orange" electricity and "green" electricity, so it is impossible to tell the difference between nuclear- and coal-based electricity. Unless some testing mechanism is developed, we shall not be able to distinguish between them. What comes through the Moyle interconnector ends up in a pool in GB, and we have no control over where the electricity is generated.
Nuclear covers about 20% of generation in the UK, but if it is got rid of, it must be replaced with something else. If that is not renewables, it will be coal, oil or gas. I understand the difficulties, but there is no easy answer. The end result will be that more fossil fuels will be burned, instead of dealing with the nuclear issue.
Dr McDonnell said that the basic objective is to have a good, reliable energy supply at a reasonable price. That is exactly what we want. However, there is a misunderstanding among Members about the contracts. The generators are not necessarily evil people who have scooped a fortune and have a licence to print money. The generators had to pay more for the power stations than they were worth, and that is why we have difficulty with those contracts. When privatisation was taking place in Great Britain, the money that the Government got for the power stations was equivalent to £109,000 per megawatt. In Northern Ireland they got £166,000 per megawatt. The Government got a significant premium for selling the generation capacity in Northern Ireland in comparison to what they received in Great Britain. That is why we have difficulties now.
The power stations are being paid for availability. If they do not turn a wheel they are paid the same as when they are producing. People must understand the origins of that difficulty.
Mr Wells said that the inquiry started as a stroll and ended up as a marathon. During his remarks, I formed the conclusion that staff in my Energy Division and others were making the same contribution that he thought he was making in Magherafelt, and I tried to picture some of them in uniform going around issuing tickets for bad parking. I understand and sympathise with him that it is very difficult to draw a crowd for some of those issues. However, that does not mean that they are not important, and he is right to concentrate on it.
Mr Wells also said a lot about Orimulsion. I met the Venezuelans through their ambassador and a representative from their company. We must think also about the treatment and the working conditions of the people who produce Orimulsion. Much criticism has been directed at the state company in Venezuela, and what is deemed to have been the exploitation of the environment and the people who produce Orimulsion.
Much depends on a major environmental assessment. Unlike oil, Orimulsion sinks. Therefore, if anything happened in Belfast Lough, Orimulsion would not float and be contained in the usual way — it would sink. I am not yet satisfied that a mechanism or procedure exists to deal with it in those circumstances. Whether those circumstances are better than what we have with oil, or whether they are worse, I am not sure.
However, much will depend on its environmental impact. I have an open mind on the Orimulsion option, as does Mr Wells, because it could possibly cost less and result in environmental improvements. I also accept the need to consider fuel diversity, so that we do not return to being wholly dependent on fuel oil, which was the position a few years ago.
Any decision to convert to the triple firing of coal, oil and Orimulsion in Kilroot, and the accompanying refinancing of the existing contract to 2024, which would be required to allow the providers to recoup their investment, requires the agreement of the owners, AES Kilroot, and NIE. The decision would be subject to the satisfactory outcome of economic appraisals by the independent regulator and the granting of the necessary statutory consents from my Department under the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, and planning approval. There is a long way to go, but I do not underestimate its significance.
Ms Morrice spoke about the complexities of the industry. I have come to that conclusion independently, and I can assure the Member that it is highly complex. The targets for renewable energy have been set at 15% by 2010 and 35% by 2020. The responses to the recent consultation paper ‘Renewable Energy in Northern Ireland – Realising the Potential’ are currently being evaluated. In addition to that, the Department and NIE will sponsor a comprehensive study of the electricity network to determine the extent to which renewable energy sources can contribute safely to mainstream electricity supply. Part of the problem is that when the wind is blowing, a surge is created. When the wind is not blowing, the supply stops. There are technical reasons to be considered, which will be addressed in that comprehensive study. We will learn as we go, but the possibilities of renewable sources of energy will require us to smarten up and deal with that matter.
Dr O’Hagan dealt with generator contracts and the all-island market, and the fact that we face a public sector versus private sector situation. With regard to the all-island market, my counterpart Mrs O’Rourke and I commissioned a study last year to assess existing arrangements, to identify barriers to trade and to consider the options for collaborative progress. We will have to await the outcome of that study before I can take matters further.
Mr McClarty mentioned the European dimension. Major energy projects, including the Moyle interconnector and the Scotland to Northern Ireland pipeline (SNIPS), have had European support in the past. It is yet to be determined what the European situation will be with regard to the gas pipelines. The issue will be progressed, but I am not yet in a position to determine whether there will be a European dimension to that project.
Mr McMenamin and other Members referred to the building regulations, which will affect the future. He also mentioned the lifespan of houses; I live in a house that is considerably older than that which he spoke about, but I am aware of the issues. Responsibility for building regulations rests with the Department of Finance and Personnel. I shall consult Dr Farren on the relevant recommendation and include the outcome of that consultation in my written response to the report. I shall deal with that matter later.
Mr Clyde spoke about greenhouse gases and renewable energy. Mr Armstrong spoke about waste. One gets the impression that he has a connection with the agriculture industry, but he made a valid point that is high on the agenda, and which I take seriously. My Colleagues in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have a problem with the tightening of the regulations governing the disposal of slurry, and anaerobic digesters are a possible solution. Arthur Doherty spoke about lignite. If the power providers at Ballymoney make an application, it will have to be treated in the same way as other applications, but there are significant environmental concerns.
A Government support fund of £60 million was announced in 1995 to help to reduce electricity prices. The use of that fund was determined by direct rule Ministers. An initial £15 million was spent to reduce the level of tariff increases in 1996-97. A further £5 million was set aside in 1997 to fund long-term energy efficiency programmes, such as the warm homes scheme, which are now managed by the Department for Social Development.
The final £40 million was used to buy down some of the costs of generator contracts. Some £10 million was spent at Ballylumford and £30 million at Kilroot. Adam Ingram, the then Economic Development Minister, announced that decision in March 2000. My role was to confirm that this offered the best long-term benefit for customers from the final tranche of money. I did that in June 2001, when various tripartite legal agreements had been drawn up and VAT issues had been resolved. There is a great deal of misinformation about that fund.
I thank the members of the Committee and Members of the Assembly for their participation today. We will take the comments seriously, and we will respond in full. I will be seeking the co-operation of Members and the Committee when I introduce the legislation that is necessary to implement as much as possible. I intend to have it done in the lifetime of this Assembly, but I will require the co-operation and goodwill of Members if I am to achieve that.

Mr Pat Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister and the Members who participated in the debate. I am greatly encouraged by the Minister’s support for the report. We covered a huge range of issues, such as bonds, renewables, nuclear energy, Orimulsion, fuel poverty, Coolkeeragh, the gas pipeline to the north-west, the 1992 contracts, human energy, postalisation, EU support, building standards, biomass, combined heat and power and the generation of heat and power from waste.
Everyone who spoke touched on those issues to some extent. However, before I deal with the individual comments I thank the members of the Committee for the enormous amount of work and energy that they put in collectively over the past year to produce the report and to produce — and I reflect the Minister’s words — this mature debate. It is a credit to the Committee that it has presented the report in the way that it has. I also thank the Special Adviser to the Committee for his enormous help as we waded through seven or eight drafts to come to this final conclusion.
The Committee’s Deputy Chairperson, Mr Neeson, spoke clearly about the licensing of the pipeline to the north-west and his support for that, and of Coolkeeragh and the absolute need for postalisation and support for the pipeline going through the towns in the north-west. He also mentioned Orimulsion, the strong environmental and Assembly guidelines to be met and the need for us to not put all our eggs in one basket.
I will come back to the question of Orimulsion and the subject of bonds, because at times during the debate one might have thought that we had a slight difference of opinion on those subjects. We agreed to have a "triple lock" on the question of Orimulsion. Some Members approached the triple lock by way of unlocking it, others approached it by way of leaving the lock on. We recognised that that issue had potential, but huge issues with regard to the economy and the environment had to be dealt with. Likewise when we touched on bonds we correctly decided that, as the Minister was about to launch a fairly major inquiry — and he has many more resources than we have — we should await the outcome of his review.
Dr Birnie spoke about the building regulations, nuclear power, and ESB’s monopoly in the South, which is true. The Committee decided not to take evidence on the use of nuclear power, which we are unanimously against. We knew that we were leaving ourselves open to a challenge on that, but the political view was strong, and we stated that in the report.
Dr McDonnell summed up the strong view of the Committee with the phrase "scandalous contracts". However, he also pointed out that even though the ESB has a monopoly in the South, NIE has an effective monopoly in the North and we are dealing with two big, strong companies as we move into this new era. He also said that this is but a stage in the debate, which is another strong point, as we will undoubtedly return to the matter often.
Mr Wells talked about nuclear power, the triple lock in Orimulsion, fuel poverty and renewable sources of energy. He contributed a good deal to the debates on Orimulsion and fuel poverty, and I thank him for his clear views on those serious issues.
Ms Morrice spoke on renewable sources, which became her main issue. We deferred to her views often and leaned on her sometimes to produce additional papers for the Committee — we thank her for that effort. She said that we are blessed — or some would say not so blessed — with high winds that we could harness and match to local skills that have always existed in the North. She made a key point when combining all those factors — that we should use the will, the political will and the confidence to tackle all those issues, match our human energies with our natural wind, with emerging skills and those that have existed here in abundance for some time.
Dr O’Hagan talked about renewable sources and Orimulsion; she came up with a different perspective on the triple lock. She spoke clearly about the generation contracts and queried whether there is potential within EU legislation for legal options that might help us deal with the contracts. She also spoke of the abiding problem of fuel poverty and how we can overcome it.
Mr McClarty spoke clearly about postalisation, his and the Committee’s support for that, fuel poverty, his clear support for the north-west pipeline and the economic imperative for that to go ahead, together with the need for European support to build it.
The newest member of the Committee, Mr McMenamin, talked about "warm homes", a simple phrase that sums up much of the debate on fuel poverty. He also spoke of the need to upgrade building standards and the need to try to expand the scope to opt-out on the climate change levy.
Mr Clyde spoke of the cost of electricity, and it was that very question — "Why is the cost of electricity so high?" — that began our inquiry into energy. That core issue kept us focused on our deliberations. Mr Clyde also spoke about Orimulsion and the potential development of the biomass process given Ireland’s agricultural background.
Mr Billy Armstrong talked about waste management and the potential for using waste to generate heat and power. He also spoke about the biomass and biogas processes. Arthur Doherty spoke about tilting at people who tilt at windmills, and left me wondering what he really meant by that. He was clearly against Orimulsion, nuclear energy and lignite but strongly supported the development of wind energy.
The Minister described this as a mature debate. I thank him for that, because the Committee worked maturely and produced a mature report. He spoke of the gas network, the Moyle interconnector, the revised energy strategy and legislation within the lifetime of the Assembly.
There were five key points: electricity costs; improving energy efficiency; renewable energy resources; gas network extensions; and the all-island energy market in an EU context. We all recognise that there are technical and legal issues. The Minister acknowledged that three quarters of the 45 recommendations were within his Department’s remit.
The Minister gave us more information about the problems associated with Orimulsion — such as workers in Venezuela who are badly treated, and some technical aspects, which we need to consider carefully. He also gave us more information about how those bad contracts came about in the first place. He blamed the direct rule Ministers, and there is no harm in that.
I thank Members for the way in which they approached the debate and recommend the report to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment on their inquiry into the Energy Report (3/01R) and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to implement the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.
Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety: Report on Cancer Services

Dr Joe Hendron: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the Second Report of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2/01R) on the Delivery of Cancer Services in Northern Ireland and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement the Report’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.
I am pleased to bring the Committee’s second report of this session before the Assembly. The report examines the delivery of cancer services in Northern Ireland, and I am gratified that it enjoyed the unanimous support of Committee members. I thank them for their hard work and positive support throughout the inquiry, which began in May 2001. I thank the Committee Clerk and staff, in particular the Assistant Clerk who worked so hard for the last nine months to produce the report. The Committee also wants to record its gratitude to the 31 organisations and individuals who gave evidence orally and made excellent written submissions, which were most enlightening. Those witnesses included representatives from the Ulster Cancer Foundation, Action Cancer, Macmillan Cancer Relief and many other bodies.
The Committee undertook an inquiry into cancer services primarily for three reasons. First, there was consensus on the need to focus on a disease that is expected to overtake coronary artery disease to become the number one killer in Northern Ireland in the next five years. Every Member, I am sure, has someone in his or her immediate or extended family who has had, or has, cancer.
Secondly, the Committee was aware of the considerable public concern about the quality of, and access to, cancer treatment. There have been widespread reports of the most intense pressures on staff and equipment at Belvoir Park Hospital. The hospital staff are doing their best to cope until the new regional cancer centre is built. The pressures have led to much frustration and disquiet for patients and staff. Members may have heard Dr Russell Houston talk about that problem on the radio this morning. The Committee visited Belvoir Park Hospital, and it has been debating the issue of whether to invest in Belvoir Park or to wait until the new cancer centre is completed at Belfast City Hospital. There are major problems in that area.
Thirdly, it was felt that such an inquiry would be a timely opportunity to review the progress on the recommendations for cancer services that arose from the Campbell Report of 1996. Although there have been welcome advances in cancer treatment since then, the evidence points equally to continuing variations in quality and provision of treatment for different cancers across Northern Ireland.
I will not give anecdotal evidence about cancer patients, but I want to emphasise the lack of uniformity of treatment across Northern Ireland. Some people die of cancer unnecessarily, and there is difficulty in obtaining early diagnosis, which is a key element of successful treatment.
The report is wide-ranging and covers matter such as the needs of patients and palliative care and important strategic issues such as cancer prevention and information management. However, in the limited time available, I want to concentrate on three areas. No doubt my Committee Colleagues and Members will pick up on other important points. I will restrict my comments to the key areas of the report: resources, the regional cancer centre and — an area in which I must declare a personal interest — primary care and the role of the general practitioner.
Cancer is a major public health problem. The financial cost of early diagnosis, treatment, care and support for patients is huge. A combination of clinical advances, an ageing population and an increase in patient expectations will contribute to increased pressures on cancer services for the foreseeable future. Therefore it is imperative that the ambitious plans for the new regional cancer centre, an expanded cancer workforce, new diagnostic equipment, drugs and information systems be accompanied by the requisite funding levels, if they are to meet the long- term needs of the population successfully. That will be no easy task in the current climate of tough governmental budgetary constraints.
The question of funding for cancer services is a microcosm of the wider debate on the long-term resourcing of the Health Service. In that context, it is worth pointing out that the UK Government spend just under 7% of GDP on health, by comparison to an average of 8·6% in other Western countries. In France the figure is 9·6%, and in the United States of America it is 14%. Recently I was told that, in the USA, $1 is spent on diabetes- related conditions for every $7 that is spent on health.
We must face the reality that securing a first-class health service for the future and for the treatment of cancer will be achieved only at considerable cost. However, our people deserve the best.
There is no dispute that significant funding has been ploughed into cancer services since the Campbell Report of 1996 to help to bring about a patient-focused realignment of services. Some £13 million of additional funding per annum has helped to meet the escalating drug costs, brought about improvements in infrastructure and provided for the appointment of over 200 additional cancer staff. The provision of an extra £3 million this year for the development of local cancer services, on top of £7 million in 1999-2000 and £8 million in 2000-01, has helped to provide a welcome boost to specialist staffing, including two additional consultant oncologists and 70 nurses.
The Committee also welcomed the provision in July 2001, by the new opportunities fund, of £6·4 million towards a range of innovative projects aimed at cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care, including funding for four much-needed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners. However, that is no substitute for the provision of mainstream Government funding for cancer services in a planned and rational way. I appreciate that the Minister has put in much effort to provide MRI scanners, and I thank her for being present at today’s debate.
The Committee notes the vital financial contribution made by the voluntary sector to cancer services. However, it also recognises that there has been an over- reliance on that sector, particularly for palliative care and information services. It is clear that the increasing demand for cancer treatment year-on-year, and the rapid development of new drugs, will require an increasing level of resources. Drug costs are currently estimated to increase annually by £7·5 million over the next three years. The number of referrals to oncologists has risen from around 3,400 in 1996 to over 4,000 in 2000. The figure is eventually expected to rise to some 6,500. The cancer workforce plan, including training, will require considerable resource commitment. The latest figures for the regional cancer centre are £57 million for the capital build and £10·5 million for annual revenue costs.
In view of the patent need for substantial additional investment in cancer services, the Committee was shocked to learn of the growing disparity in funding allocations for health services between here and England. The inquiry highlighted an alarming gap in expenditure on health and personal social services between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, where the growth in expenditure in real terms amounted to 35% and 57% respectively during the 1990s. I refer Members to the recent report by the Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Services (NICON) — the organisation that represents the four health boards. Mr Brendan Cunningham, the chief executive of the Southern Health and Social Services Board, acts as its spokesperson. Members may want to examine that report, as it gives direct comparisons between funding for the Health Service in England and Wales with that in Northern Ireland. It makes fascinating reading, and it shows how badly done by Northern Ireland has been.
If Northern Ireland had matched the increases for England, the health and personal social services would have gained an extra £83 million for this year, £138 million for 2002-03 and £214 million for 2003-04. To that end, the Committee fully supports the Minister and the Executive in pressing for a fair allocation of UK public expenditure to Northern Ireland. The Barnett formula, which is used to determine our levels of expenditure, is recognised as resulting in lower levels of public expenditure in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain.
Significant additional resources, amounting to over £1·2 billion, have been allocated for the next three years to support the ambitious National Health Service cancer plan, published in 2000, for England and Wales, which is designed to deliver the fastest improving cancer services in Europe over the next five years. Given Northern Ireland’s well-documented problems of poverty, social deprivation and historical lack of investment, it is unacceptable that cancer services here should not enjoy a similar pro-rata spending increase to support a strategic plan to improve staffing levels, equipment, facilities, drugs and information systems.
The Committee supports the work of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to secure extra funds to improve the quality of health treatment and care.
That is a priority in the Executive’s Programme for Government. The Minister has achieved a measure of success in obtaining extra funding from increased Budget allocations and Executive programme funds since devolution.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair).
Any future departmental commitment to substantially increase resources for cancer services must be accompanied by robust monitoring mechanisms with clearly defined goals and objectives. A rigorous audit of cancer services must be conducted annually, both regionally and in cancer units, to ensure that outcomes and improvements are properly measured and demonstrate value for money.
The issue of funding leads me to the biggest area of public concern about cancer services — the absence of the long-promised regional cancer centre. The centre of excellence was a major recommendation of the Campbell Report, and it is increasingly concerning that, some six years later, not a brick has been laid.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the four cancer units have been operational since October 1999, providing more than 50% of all day-patient chemotherapy treatment and specialist services for breast, lung and colorectal cancers. However, the lack of movement on the regional cancer centre is a critical issue that impacts on patients’ treatment and care. It also affects the morale of the hard-pressed cancer care professionals.
At this point, I want to mention Prof Patrick Johnston and his team at Belfast City Hospital, and Prof Roy Spence, the senior cancer surgeon. I am sure that many people in Northern Ireland appreciate that we have some of the top cancer specialists in the world, particularly in Prof Johnston, who heads the team. He worked along with Dr Rick Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. That institute is the largest of its kind in the world.
I also remind Members of the Dublin-Belfast- Washington memorandum of understanding, signed in October 1999, concerning cancer research. The Committee and I recently received a letter from Prof Johnston about the research in which he and his team are engaged. He said that the cancer research effort at Queen’s University, which includes work at Belfast City Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital, has achieved a very high score in the latest university research assessment exercise in one of the most difficult units of assessment — unit of assessment 1.
That assessment puts the cancer research programme at Queen’s University at the top of the national and international research effort, and it recognises the pioneering achievements of the clinical and basic scientific staff within the centre, whose dedication and hard work on behalf of cancer patients is beginning to pay off. We recognise that we have world-class research, but today’s report is about the delivery of cancer services.
The regional cancer centre is the key missing link to a modern, fully integrated, patient-centred cancer service for all people in Northern Ireland. It should be seen as a symbol of quality, and it should provide central leadership and direction to the cancer units and hospitals that deal with cancer patients.
The Committee was most concerned about the unacceptable delays in getting the new centre off the ground. The first report of the Regional Advisory Committee on Cancer anticipated that the new cancer facility would open in 2003. Given that it will take at least three years for the centre to be built, the completion date will be a long way off that originally envisaged.
The rapid increases in the estimated costs of the new centre are a cause for considerable concern. The figure has risen from £32 million in 1999 to the latest estimate of £57 million, which underlines the need to move rapidly on the project. The massive hike in costs has been attributed to substantial changes in the specifications to take account of clinical advances, new equipment and patient numbers.
The Committee accepts the importance of getting the design and shape of the centre, together with its equipment, right from the outset to ensure the optimum configuration. However, why is it taking so long to settle on a final plan? Thousands of people in Northern Ireland want an answer to that — not only patients and their families, but those who are working at the coalface of cancer services.
The Committee notes that a final business plan has now been approved. The latest information that I have says that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Finance and Personnel have passed the previous business plan, which, I believe, was issued in September 2001. I understand that the private finance initiative is now under way. The Minister will refer to that point later.
The Minister must tell the Assembly how quickly the centre will be built if the private finance initiative option is used, and at what final cost to the public purse. She must reassure the Assembly and the public that value for money will be a prime consideration of any funding route taken.
Given that once approval to proceed has been granted it will take some three years to construct and equip the centre, it is imperative that the necessary funds are urgently secured regardless of the option pursued. The Committee had a detailed discussion with the Minister on the potential of the Executive programme funds, in particular infrastructure funds, to assist in the building of the new centre, and supports her efforts to explore that. There is a compelling case for funding a flagship project that will provide all the people of Northern Ireland with a centre of excellence for years to come. The centre will also act as a magnet for expert staff and research funding, which is also important. I referred earlier to the top class research efforts already in place here.
The Campbell Report recognised that primary care has a crucial role to play in the delivery of high quality cancer care. More than 90% of cancer patients spend most of their time at home, and primary care teams meet most of their needs. Apart from GPs, the teams comprise such different professionals in cancer care as community and Macmillan nurses, and specialists in speech therapy, dietetics, occupational therapy and social care, all of whom play a pivotal role in a cancer patient’s rehabilitation process. The Committee supports the development of the multidisciplinary-team approach to primary care so that good practices in cancer care can be disseminated across the health boards and trusts.
The Committee welcomes such schemes as the Northern Target initiative in the Northern Health Board, which involves closing down GP practices for one afternoon a month for the entire multidisciplinary team to meet away from the workplace to discuss such common issues as education, communication and guidelines.
GPs make a significant contribution to the delivery of cancer services as they are normally the first point of contact for cancer patients and their families. They can play a pivotal role in successful early detection, prompt referral, interface with secondary care and out-of-hours care. As many cancers can be successfully treated if detected in time, public awareness and knowledge of early symptoms are important. Therefore, it is vital that GPs be kept fully up to date with the latest developments, especially those that concern treatment and recognition of symptoms. The Committee was encouraged to learn that the Campbell commissioning project is developing guidelines for the symptoms of each cancer to help GPs decide whether to make urgent referrals.
The British Medical Association (NI) General Practitioners’ Committee highlighted pressures on time and backlog of work as obstacles to improved cancer services, and pointed to the need for more GPs and nurses to speed up the process for referral and investigation. Given the pressures under which GPs operate, the Committee accepts the Campbell commissioning project’s argument for GPs to have adequate time to see their patients.
The Committee commends the initiative by Macmillan Cancer Relief in providing a network of GP facilitators across the four health and social services boards’ areas. They will act as advocates on behalf of the GPs in their areas, by highlighting concerns and by working with colleagues in hospital and community settings to resolve problems in the system and to effect innovative improvements in the delivery of cancer services. At this point, I draw attention to the officials from the Southern Health Board who met with us recently. They have adopted an initiative that includes pharmacists. It is to do with palliative care for people with cancer, and the aim is to ensure that such people who need drugs such as morphine at night time, through the night, and on Saturdays and Sundays can get them and will not be left uncared for.
The Committee learned that a major issue for GPs is their frustration with blockages in the referral system as a result of lengthy waiting lists for CAT or MRI scans.
The British Medical Association (NI) General Practitioners’ Committee reports that the increasing specialisation of cancer consultants can make it difficult for GPs and their patients to identify the best referral pathway. Therefore, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety sees considerable merit in the argument for a simple electronic referral system in various sites in Northern Ireland complemented by a cancer registry of specialist services that lists the availability of multidisciplinary cancer teams, in order to minimise delays. As early diagnosis is so important, there must be a robust system to monitor the implementation of referral guidelines.
There is considerable scope for improvement in the interface between primary and secondary care. In May 2000, a survey of GPs revealed a general perception that access, transport, information flow, the co-ordination of services provided to patients, the accessibility of consultant staff to GPs and the discharge/outpatient information that GPs are given had deteriorated in the preceding year.
Those views echo witnesses’ evidence that their "cancer journey" can be chaotic, with delays in referral from the GP to the hospital, long waits for consultation at hospital, delays and confusion over tests, lost records and failure to transfer information to the GP. The apparent lack of a seamless, patient-centred cancer service is a matter of deep concern to the Committee. There must be effective two-way communication channels between primary care professionals and their secondary care colleagues. The Committee believes that there must be a change of culture between the primary and secondary sectors from one of competition to one of collaboration, with a view to promoting the needs of cancer patients above all else.
Recently, officials at Antrim Area Hospital told the Committee that, following referral by a GP, it can take up to nine months for a patient to receive an endoscopy to diagnose cancer. If someone has a growth in his or her colon, imagine what can happen in nine months.
The Committee was dismayed to learn that the first details that GPs receive about cancer patients are frequently contained in a handwritten discharge letter given to them when they carry out a home visit. It would greatly benefit primary care practitioners if a minimum set of data relating to each patient were made available. To that end, the Committee warmly welcomes the initiative taken by the Campbell Commissioning Project in the development of patient-held records. That should help to improve the speed of communication between hospitals and doctors. It would also help to inform patients about the management of their treatment. The Committee recommends that the Department introduce that initiative across Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
Given that 90% of all cancer patients are looked after in the community, there is a need for a fully integrated out-of-hours service. Out-of-hours care is the single most important issue raised by GPs. The Committee is concerned that in many parts of Northern Ireland there is no cover after 5.00 pm. That is totally unacceptable, and the Department should ensure a fully integrated, equitable, out-of-hours service for cancer patients throughout Northern Ireland. Lessons can be learned from the model of excellence in the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust, which offers 24-hour nursing care and a rapid response team.
Specialist and district nurses have a central role to play in the delivery of cancer services in the primary care setting. Meaningful investment in community nursing services would make a significant impact on cancer services provision in the primary care setting and would be an important step towards achieving a more equitable service.
The Committee trusts that the report’s 41 recommendations will form part of a co-ordinated, inclusive approach to improving the quality of cancer services and outcomes for patients, and to eradicating inequities in the system. The recommendations recognise fully the need for cross-departmental collaboration and for close liaison between the statutory and voluntary sectors on strategic planning.
I look forward to today’s debate, which will lend a timely platform to this extremely important health matter. The people of Northern Ireland deserve the best facilities possible. I commend the report to the House.

Ms Jane Morrice: Before I call the next Member, I advise Members that, given that three hours have been allocated for the debate, they should limit their speeches to 10 minutes.

Rev Robert Coulter: In bringing forward this report, the Committee realised the importance of cancer services in our community. When we found out that, as it says in the report, cancer will affect one in three of the population, we began to grasp the importance of the issue. When we consider that 6,500 people will be diagnosed with cancer in the near future, and that 3,500 people die from cancer here each year, we are immediately conscious that we are not dealing with some unimportant, short- term strategy. If we are to provide a service that will not only relieve the pain of cancer sufferers but also help their families, the report must be taken most seriously, not only by the Minister, the Department and the Assembly, but by everyone in our community.
The number of people who are diagnosed with cancer and the number of cancer deaths are only the beginning. Cancer casts a feeling of dread over everyone because there is a sense in which we all wonder whether we shall be the one in three to receive the death sentence. That is why we must inform the population that cancer need not be a death sentence. There are cures and effective ways to overcome cancer. We need not necessarily despair, and our families need not sink into a morass of hopelessness. By trusting and depending on the Health Service and its staff’s expertise, we can have hope where before there was only despair. But — and this "but" is important — the waiting times and the number of people who are left without treatment for far too long are causing not only those who suffer, but the entire community, to lose confidence in the ability of the Health Service to address a situation that is of vital importance to one in three of the population and their families.
As we consider the report, we must address several issues. I compliment the Committee Chairperson on covering so much ground; indeed, he has covered so much that he has left very little for the rest of us to say.
I am amazed that the only guidance circular that the Department issues on waiting times for cancer treatment relates solely to breast cancer referrals. I ask the Minister to take the matter back to the Department; there are so many other forms of cancer. Without being facetious, that circular cuts out the male half of the population. Half of the population does not receive any guidance on waiting times for cancer treatment.
A short-term strategy must be devised to improve communication between acute hospitals and GPs. There is far too much isolation. The them-and-us mentality is much too prevalent in the Health Service. Services remain isolated from one another, and people are too often concerned with their own sections. We need a fully integrated service, especially where cancer services are concerned, so that patients are looked after by the whole service — from the GPs, to acute hospital attention and subsequent community care.
We can deal with the situation in two ways — through short-term or long-term strategies. In the short term, decisions must be made immediately. Hospitals are crying out because of lack of beds, staff and capacity, and we must address those issues. Different sections must not only be brought together in a multidisciplinary team, but we must examine the financing of cancer services. There is no point in having a cancer centre that will be the best in the world in four or five years’ time. Such a long-term strategy would be of no benefit to the many patients who are waiting for treatment.
As regards finance, the community is prepared to play its part. A team effort will be required to overcome financial problems. When the Department says that it does not have funds, we must consider other ways of raising money. Some years ago, we came up against funding problems for the cardiac unit at the Waveney hospital in Ballymena. We brought the community together, and a great deal of money was raised. I ask the Minister and the Department, if the community were to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds, would they be prepared to match the amount pound for pound? In that way, the entire community would become involved — people would be interested in what they were doing and they could see that something was being done.
Our party’s slogan with regard to the delivery of health services is "Putting Patients First". If the Department and the Health Service were to take that on board, a service could be delivered in which the whole community could have confidence.
I support the efforts of the Minister and the Department. I recognise that there have been shortfalls in investment, but immediate action must be taken on our cancer centre. We must have decisions, not more consultations. Let us move forward, and take our people with us, so that we can provide them with a Health Service in which they can have confidence.

Mr Paul Berry: In 1996, Henrietta Campbell produced a report on cancer services called ‘Cancer Services — Investing for the Future’. That was a ground-breaking report; it was radical and pioneering, and one which has become the benchmark and framework for cancer service development in Northern Ireland.
The framework is that in its recommendations lies the goal of a proper cancer service. The benchmark is that we only have to compare what we have with what we should have.
In a sense, our report looks at both those aspects. Good points are clearly indicated, but sadly there are serious shortcomings that need to be addressed without delay. Our cancer services are a story of fortitude in the face of discouragement and valour in the face of limitations. The minutes of evidence that we have published contain several strong indictments about the range of measures that are lacking simply because there is no proper strategy.
First, there is the missing link — the new cancer centre. The vision of the "hub and spokes" has not been achieved. The spokes are being developed thanks to the clinicians, the trusts and voluntary organisations, but there is no hub. The ministerial delay and inactivity is apparent to all, but especially to those who suffer. Instead of pursuit, authorisation and implementation, all we have are delays and excuses. The central recommendation of the Campbell Report has not even materialised after five years, and there is no excuse for that. The new cancer centre is not merely an aspiration, but the crucial element of our cancer services, and its ongoing absence is a disgrace. A commitment that is not actively pursued towards achievement is but a mockery. As the report states, it is symptomatic of much that is happening in the Health Service when it comes to spending money — namely there is a lack of clearly defined objectives and goals. However, here is one goal that can, with active pursuit, be achieved. As Mr Coulter said, the reality of more than 6,000 cancer cases a year, with 3,500 deaths, is sufficient to show the need for the new centre.
Secondly, there is piecemeal implementation. Progress has been made since 1996, and all progress is welcome. The report clearly acknowledges each and every step taken, and tribute must be paid to those directly involved in delivering cancer services. However, no proper timetable exists for implementing all the recommendations of the Campbell Report. The Campbell Commissioning Project said that we are around 50% down the road — that is disappointing and is not helped by the glaring absence of service development money specifically for cancer services in the Budget. How that was overlooked needs to be explained, and to be told that any extra money that may become available will be used for cancer services is hardly reassuring.
Our report makes it clear that each part of the framework must be developed in parallel, not in isolation. The Ulster Cancer Foundation stated in its submission that "much remains to be done." We need a cancer plan, as Mr Gibson of Macmillan Cancer Relief pointed out when he said that
"Announcements about specific increases are to be welcomed. However, what is needed is the generic, medium-term ability to examine the entire scope of cancer services and to suggest improvements over three to five years."
In other words, like the rest of the Health Service, it is plagued by a short-term approach and no long-term plan. We really need an independent audit of the resources provided and the services delivered. There are so many layers that it is all getting out of control.
Thirdly, there are serious trends. Although improvements have been made in particular areas such as the area of consultants, the Committee is concerned about what the Campbell Commissioning Project termed as the haemorrhaging of skilled staff from Northern Ireland. Given the time and investment in training, this is a significant matter.
Given the Department’s staffing plans, there is considerable concern as to whether these targets can be met and sustained in the long term. Without crucial commitments and clear objectives, what is currently a trend will, in time, become a major crisis.
Another trend that causes concern is the increasing workload on GPs. Since 1996 their workload has increased to such a degree that they have less time to spend with patients, and because of that the detection of cancer may be seriously hampered. I trust that that will be addressed in the near future.
Our report also highlights the need to improve GPs’ ability to diagnose cancer in the first place. That is not helped by the increased workload, part of which is due to the mass of guidelines sent to them every week. Little wonder that Mr Quigley, the chief executive of Action Cancer, is concerned about the ability of the Health Service to hold on to GPs and good medical staff. Our expertise is at risk, because they are attracted to other places.
Dr Patterson from the General Practitioners’ Committee said that for GPs the biggest obstacle is coping with demand, which in turn is hampered by the backlog of work and the extra workload created by those who have difficulty getting treatment. Those delays have become familiar in our Health Service. We should read the submission by the General Practitioners’ Committee to realise GPs’ concerns.
The Committee Chairperson has regularly talked about a trend that must be radically reversed: the tendency to allow equipment to get out of date. There is evidence of piecemeal replacement and repair. It is incomprehensible that cancer patients are subjected to treatment with equipment that, in some cases, is a decade out of date. Up-to-date equipment is vital. At other times, patients have to wait while equipment is repaired. Given that any financial announcement about new equipment, while welcome, occurs a considerable time before the actual purchase, there should be a rolling programme of replacement for vital equipment. That is possible, given the millions that are wasted elsewhere.
There are also some general needs. The variation in delivery causes great concern. Patients may or may not receive treatment, depending on where they live. Many of the submissions, including those of the Ulster Cancer Foundation and Macmillan Cancer Relief, drew our attention to the variation in delivery experienced across Northern Ireland, where services and treatment are available in some areas but not in others. The Department must give genuine consideration to that matter and ensure that such variations are removed, because it is a matter of severe concern.
Of equal importance is a directory of specialists involved in cancer services. This was recommended by the Campbell Commissioning Group, but so far it has not materialised. There have been promises, but no product. I urge every Member to read the report in order to get a full picture of the current situation in cancer services. The second volume of submissions, in particular, reveals the real problems that people who are actively involved in the delivery of cancer services face.
Finally, I join with the Members who have commended the Health Service staff who are working at the coalface on a daily basis, dealing with cancer patients. We salute these people, who are doing wonderful work, as well as the cancer organisations who work continually, not only with us, but most of all with cancer patients. I also commend the Committee Clerk and staff for their dedication and commitment. I trust that everybody will support this important motion.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the Business Committee for allowing three hours for this debate. During recent health debates we have all complained that we have been involved in writing up reports and then an hour or an hour and a half has been allocated for debate, so maybe they are taking our complaints on board.
As a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety I support the motion and commend the report.
I want to take the opportunity to thank the Committee Clerks and the support staff for their help and support over the past few months. Some of them worked hard over the Christmas recess. We appreciate all that work in providing the Committee with the relevant information and documentation in order to finalise the report.
As several Members have said, the Committee received detailed written submissions and took oral evidence from several organisations and individuals with an interest in cancer and cancer services. I thank them for their efforts and their excellent presentations.
Nearly 10 months ago, the Committee agreed to investigate the position of cancer and cancer services and, where possible, make recommendations to the Minister that might improve services. From the report, the Committee has made 41 recommendations, which I hope the Minister will examine. I thank the Minister for her attendance at the debate. This is an issue for the Executive, and I raise it at nearly every debate. The Executive have stated time and again that health is a priority in the Programme for Government. If that is the case, the Executive must provide proper long-term funding so that problems in the Health Service can be tackled and, more specifically, cancer services can be dealt with.
Our communities have one of the highest levels of deprivation. We also have one of the highest smoking rates as well as a poor diet. All those factors are associated with increased rates of cancer. As several Members have said, cancer will affect one in three of the population, and one in four will develop cancer before the age of 75. Mr Coulter pointed out that referrals to oncologists have risen from 3,400 in 1996 to 4,000 in 2000; approximately 6,300 people have been diagnosed with cancer, and 3,500 have died. Cancer is expected to be the number one killer in the next five years. That is the stark reality.
Measures such as screening, education and raising awareness must be increased and made more effective. I welcome the advertisements currently running on television, and I support the need for more of those advertisements. I also welcome the initiatives taken by groups such as Action Cancer and others in raising the awareness of some cancers. The levels of uptake of screening programmes in socially disadvantaged areas are poor. Education is a key factor in that. Last year, over 31% of women had not had a cervical screening test in the previous five years, and 28% of women aged 50 to 64 had not had breast screening in three years. That is again a stark statistic that we must try to tackle.
There is also a commitment to providing services in the medical and professional field. Prof Paddy Johnston pointed out to the Committee that in the five years since the Campbell Report was published there have been some significant improvements and patients are beginning to experience benefits in cancer services. He said that there is more specialist focus on cancer care, and multidisciplinary teams are making valuable developments in most areas of cancer care. He also stated that there is better access to investigation and treatment for some cancers. Chemotherapy now has a consultant-led presence, and the quality and profile of cancer research has improved. That has led to the development of clinical trials research that allows patients access to new therapies as they develop.
In the report the Committee took on board not only the negative side of cancer services and what cancer patients are experiencing but also the positive work that is being conducted, both in the community sector and the voluntary sector. Action Cancer pointed out that services should seek to address the needs of patients from the start. Nobody would argue with that. There is concern with regard to referrals from GPs to hospitals, and back again.
Action Cancer said that services should take a holistic view of patients and should help to address their physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs. Nobody would argue against that. We cannot look at cancer in isolation; we need to take on board the social, emotional and physical effects that it has on people. Action Cancer also said that each patient’s needs differ and that services must be flexible to meet those needs. The Committee took both statements on board and made suitable recommendations. Evidence has shown that the transition from GP to hospital and back has not been smooth — and that alarmed the Committee.
Poor diet also causes death from cancer, and the Committee strongly advocates initiatives such as the five-a-day programme, which is designed to improve diet by increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables. I welcome and highlight that initiative taken by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I appeal to them to ensure that the programmes are not only carried out, but are seen to be carried out where they are most needed.
Interested groups are carrying out positive, ongoing work. Like other Members, I thank them for their hard work, dedication and commitment. Without such individuals and the voluntary and community sectors, services could be worse off. We must appreciate their hard work.
The Chairperson referred to the cancer action plan earlier, which is an all-Ireland report on cancer launched recently by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her counterpart in the 26 Counties. We must support that initiative. In a joint press release the Ministers said:
"This report is the result of a major collaborative effort between the two Registries North and South in partnership with the US National Cancer Institute. It is an excellent example of cooperation between expert organisations. It gives us strong pointers for future action to help prevent cancer, improve care and treatment services, and strengthen research arrangements on the island."
That is the vision we were seeking when we were examining cancer services.
The Committee makes 41 recommendations. Some Members reading the report or the executive summary may feel that some recommendations seem quite simple and ask why they were not implemented already. Others might feel that some recommendations seem quite silly, and if we are talking about lack of services, why are we making such recommendations.
The issue that struck me was the up-to-date information that many patient advocate groups are asking for. They want information on waiting times for the treatment of different cancers to be presented in an easily understood format on the Department’s web site and other public information facilities. That issue kept coming up. I was struck that people were being diagnosed with some form of cancer but were being left waiting for months without relevant information. People were wondering whether they would have the energy to beat their diagnosed cancer.
I acknowledge the commitment from the Minister and her announcement of additional money to cancer services. However, the Health Service has been underfunded for years, and cancer services face extreme and complex problems. The Executive must accept that health has been underfunded. If health is a priority then the Executive should put their money where their mouth is.

Mr Sam Foster: I felt duty bound to be involved in this very important debate. I hope that progress will be made. Cancer is a scourge.
I wish to congratulate those who work so diligently in the Health Service to prevent this enemy of society. There are 8,700 new cancer patients a year and 3,800 deaths from cancer a year. Either sex has a one in three chance of developing cancer. To think of it in another way, of the 108 Members in the Assembly, 36 could be afflicted with cancer in their lifetime.
Cancer survival rates for the United Kingdom have been consistently poor and rank at the bottom of cancer survival rates in western Europe. We must improve access to high-level care, provide a patient-centred service, provide efficient and effective services to all and for all and provide services and facilities that are flexible and fulfil the requirements of the community.
A new case of cancer is diagnosed in Northern Ireland every 80 minutes. It is a shocking and a frightening thought. On 3 October 1999 a tripartite agreement was signed in Parliament Buildings between the USA, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to initiate a centre of excellence in Northern Ireland. It was to lead Europe in cancer services. I was pleased to be part of that as the UUP health spokesman, and I was accompanied by Dr Joe Hendron.
I would also like to pay tribute to the hard work of Prof Paddy Johnston and Prof Roy Spence. Dr Henrietta Campbell, the Chief Medical Officer, was also very supportive. There was a memorandum of understanding, of which I have a copy. What has happened to it? Where has it gone? Is it not time that we saw some movement to fulfil that magnanimous intent?
There are other needs to be fulfilled. I accept, having been in the Executive, that it is always easier to be an advocate than a doer. However, there is a real and presently unfulfilled need. The regional cancer centre is the missing link to a fully integrated cancer service for all the people of Northern Ireland.
We require more oncologists to service the need in the outpatient clinics of our major hospitals. At one time, we needed 30 oncologists to cater for our needs; today we have 10·5. The number of patients has increased by 54·4% in the past four years, while the number of oncologists has increased by 23·5%. That is not a good record.
Coming from a country area as I do, I find it a shame that people in rural areas are less likely to beat cancer. They are up to four times more likely to die before the disease is diagnosed. Weak and elderly patients have to endure very long journeys. Surely everyone is entitled to equality of treatment? I come from Enniskillen, which is very isolated. To reduce services in that part of the world would be lacking in compassion and totally unacceptable.
The spend in Northern Ireland is approximately £15 million a year. We need about £25 million a year in order to cope. New money is essential. It is the duty of Government to invest in the vital quest to arrest the scourge of cancer, because there is no wealth but health, and hence, life.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the report. Ilka thrid bodie in the Unitit Kingrik taks sum kin cancer — a fair scunnersum stateistic. Oot the 108 LMFs here theday, 36 wul maist lyke tak the cancer for sum pairt o thair lyfes. That feigur’s a quare gunk, but whit begeks us mair is that monie o thaim waitin on treatment coud hae sae lang as nyne month ti byde, on ower thae months the cancer could get that ill the wad be nocht coud be duin for it. We cannae hauld wi sicna seituation, an we maun luik at it nou. It is aw weill an guid allouin that our Halth Service is crummlin doun around our lugs and that we’r needin ti dae sumthin anent it, but fowk as coud mend an gae on ti hae fu an blyth lyfes is leiterallie diein, thai’r efter bydin that lang. A’m o the opeinion the recommends wul hae fowk waitin ower lang on trysts wi specialists, but gif this pairt o’t is juist a preliminary bydin tyme wi the inlat for lowdenin the tyme tint on waitin leits in the twa-thrie yeir cumin, A’m for uphauldin it an grie it soud be putten forrit.
One in three people in Britain are diagnosed with cancer. That is a scary statistic. Out of 108 Members, 36 will be diagnosed with cancer at some stage in their lives. The figure is astounding, but what is more astounding is that many of those people have to wait for up to nine months for treatment. During those months the cancer can become terminal and, perhaps, untreatable. This is an untenable situation, and it must be addressed immediately. It is all very well to say that the Health Service is crumbling around us and we need to do something about it, but people who could be cured and go on to lead full and happy lives are dying while waiting for treatment.
The waiting time recommendations for appointments to meet with specialists are still too long. If this is just a preliminary waiting time with the prospect of reducing waiting lists in the next couple of years, I will be in support of it, and I will agree that it should be recommended. My constituency of Strangford, along with the rest of the Antrim coast, has a high frequency of cancer. I agree with the implementation of a comprehensive regional cancer plan. That would enable each region in Northern Ireland to address particular needs such as bowel cancer and children’s cancers. It is imperative, however, that the Minister and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety listen to those people who work with cancer patients. They must listen to patients to gain an extensive understanding of the problems that they face when they are trying to fight this debilitating and exhausting disease. We must give every patient the full opportunity to survive cancer, as opposed to living with it.
As a matter of extreme urgency the communications system between hospitals must be not only instigated, but safeguarded. General practitioners, consultants, Macmillan nurses, hospices and laboratories must be connected to a central network that allows patients’ records to be updated immediately, to prevent the duplication of tests and, in some cases, of drugs prescribed. Nothing can be more disheartening than having to describe one’s ailment over and again to uniformed personnel simply to gain some relief from the constant pain and discomfort. We must remove some of the lengthy and frustrating red tape for the 8,500 people who are diagnosed with cancer every year and who have a real battle to fight.
Those frustrations come across to the nurses, doctors and patients as stress, creating a working environment that is unhelpful to the healing process. The communication system will be a useful tool for examining areas, such as Strangford, which have concentrations of certain cancers. The cause can then be investigated in the light of those findings.
Ensuring that only the medical staff is privy to information is difficult. Many members of the security forces have been diagnosed with cancer. Members of the Special Branch allege a link between 10 deaths from cancer and the radios that they use while on duty. Their families would not like it if those patient details got into the wrong hands. If there is a way of safeguarding the information system from subversive intrusion, I will fully support its immediate implementation.
It is often through cancer charities that patients find the most helpful, patient replies to the never-ending questions about their condition. One patient told me that he was given answers from the hospice nurse only because members of hospital staff were so rushed off their feet that they came to regard his constant questioning of his treatment and his bodily changes as a nuisance or a psychological problem. He told me that he was not an angry young man; he simply wanted to know what to expect so that he could prepare himself for the next stages of the disease.
Only after visiting the hospice nurse, and sitting with him for over two hours, over several cups of coffee, did he get the answers to his questions — the answers that he had been looking for. Hospice nurses and Macmillan nurses should be drafted into the equation at a much earlier phase, and they should be accessible to the patients — located on the wards instead of being restricted to their own buildings. After all, the word "cancer" strikes fear into the hearts of any man or woman, be they as strong as Hercules or as intelligent as Prof Stephen Hawking.
Smoking, as the main cause of cancer, should be actively discouraged. We need to see more advertisements such as the recent one that featured the aorta of a 32-year-old smoker. If you have seen that television advert you will have been impressed. However, if you like mayonnaise, you may never eat it again. It caught my attention, but one such advert is not enough. We need more hard-hitting advertisements. I agree with the Committee’s recommendation that there should be a Province-wide ban on cigarette advertising. That needs to happen soon. Nearly every advertising hoarding in Ards has a cigarette advertisement at one point in the year, and some of those are near schools. Perhaps the national scheme, which recognises those who have given up smoking or rewards those who have given up, could encourage more smokers to give up. However, do they have the right incentive?
Something needs to be done, as I have noticed that smoking has become glamorous again, probably due to the film industry and television. It is certainly rubbing off on our children. There are figures to suggest that 25,000 teenagers will die from smoking-related diseases in middle age, and that gives a perspective of what could happen. Yesterday I met with teenagers from Donaghadee High School who are investigating what we, as MLAs, are proactively doing in the Assembly to combat smoking. It would be fantastic for them to see that the Assembly is making moves to do something specific, targeted and focused.
At this stage I want to mark up the issue — and I have asked the Minister a question about it — of teenagers and their rehabilitation in hospital. Teenagers need to have their own rehabilitation unit when they are having treatment, rather than being alongside smaller children. Teenagers are growing up; they need somewhere for themselves, and I hope that we can get the answers that we need on that.
Research shows that cancer can be genetic, but are there outside influences that can predetermine which person out of three will get cancer? I want to see schemes set up whereby family members of those with cancer are screened, so that we can prevent cancer starting, and subsequently, painful and radical treatment being used. It should be the Government that starts those schemes and not the family members. In the United States of America, a news anchorwoman started a campaign for the relatives of victims of bowel cancer. She encouraged them to contact the cancer centres in their towns that were organising countrywide research into the disease from which her husband had died the year before. It was a personal initiative, yet it started a movement. That one brave woman wanted to help others.
It is the responsibility of the Government and the Department of Health in the Province to help the people, whom they are supposed to represent, by organising that sort of scheme. It can be done, and it should be considered. It would provide families with education about the disease, such as symptoms, eating habits that can combat cancer and other invaluable information. Cancer — the scourge of modern society — needs to be addressed. I commend the report, and I hope that the Minister and her Department can respond in a positive manner.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too welcome the report. Prof Paddy Johnston has played a Herculean role in the fight against cancer. In speaking about the report ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’, he said to society here:
"No longer accept a situation where a set of diseases that affects one in three of our population and results in the death of one in four of our people is not adequately resourced and tackled in order to bring our survivor figures for cancer up to those seen in the best European countries, such as Switzerland and Holland."
At the other end of the spectrum, a cancer patient said:
"To have one’s mortality threatened in such a basic way can be life-changing and very frightening. The very least that we can expect from a cancer service is that it not only meets the physical needs of the patient but also the emotional needs of both the patient and their families."
Cancer is a frightening disease, and we have all been affected by it in some way, through our families or our extended families. It is frightening to think that approximately 8,000 new cases of cancer occur each year in this part of Ireland, mainly among the elderly.
The key to the problem facing not just our cancer services but the entire Health Service is contained in the first paragraph on resources in the executive summary of the Committee’s report.
"If we had matched the increases in England our health and social services would have gained an extra £83 million in 2001/02, £138 million in 2002/03 and £214 million in 2003/04."
That is an example of the ground that we need to make up — a total of £435 million.
Cancer will affect one in three people, and the impact is massive. The emotional cost of cancer, the stress and the need for real, extra care cannot be underestimated. I welcome the progress made in bringing resources closer to the patients. We need a vision for health, and it must be patient-centred. We need diagnosis and review facilities close at hand, and I welcome the Minister’s response to the Campbell Report. The four cancer units are now providing 50% of all-day patient chemotherapy, and that is the way to go.
I welcome the provision of more MRI scanners and in the interim the upgrading of equipment at Belvoir Park. However, that is not a long-term solution. The original plan for the regional cancer centre would have provided a facility with a certain level of services, but the £57 million plan will create a world-beater — a facility of international standard, and the international links fostered and deepened will ensure that we deliver a world- class service. That must be our vision, and people deserve nothing less. I recognise the urgent need to start building the regional cancer centre, but I am not convinced that private finance initiative (PFI) is the best route, either in cost or speed.
We have mentioned health and health promotion, and we need to consider the tobacco-smoking statistics and the number of young people whose health and lives are endangered from smoking. Smoking kills people — 3,000 people die prematurely because of smoking in this part of Ireland each year, with an annual in-patient care cost of £22 million. Smoking accounts for 30% of all cancers and 80% of lung cancers.
I welcome the Minister’s and the Department’s efforts to bring about a preventive process in the fight against cancer. It is important that we look not just at the statistics but at young women especially coming out of school. The first thing they do is light a cigarette. How to combat that and bring the message home that they are shortening their lives is of concern to us all. They are shortening lives that could play an important part in programmes and schemes for good health and in the future of this part of Ireland.
I congratulate the Minister on her Health Promotion Agency. We need more public health and prevention of illness campaigns. They should be central to our vision for health. I am pleased that the Executive last week endorsed the Investing for Health strategy.
I will return to the matter of resources. More people must be trained, and the Minister of the Department for Employment and Learning will support and facilitate that aim.
We must ask why there are not enough consultants and nurses. The origins of that problem extend back for 10 or 15 years. We must make changes to the training process, especially in specialist areas. I do not need to repeat — or perhaps I do — that the Health Service needs more money. I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel will support this.
We must challenge the unfair Barnett formula, but not just for talk’s sake. Either there is a case for challenging how the block grant is worked out, or there is not. We must challenge the British Exchequer, and the Executive, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Finance Minister and the Health Minister should all be engaged in that process. Most importantly, every party in the Executive, and every Department, must accept hard choices, because there will be hard choices in the battle against cancer.
As other Members have said, we must not forget those people who worked so hard to bring the report to the Assembly. It has been a massive piece of work for many people in the Committee, and we must thank all the people and organisations who made submissions. All those people expressed the same concerns about the underfunding of the Health Service and the way in which the whole foundation of cancer treatment is being run down, with staff having to use outdated machinery that breaks down. That is because we did not have the sort of funding required to give the Health Service the facilities to treat cancer patients.
I want to mention a few points from the executive summary of the report. The Committee recommends that:
"The Department should encourage cancer specialists to work collaboratively to develop effective guidelines that will help GPs and other primary care professionals to recognise the symptoms of cancer."
That is where the primary care issue is coming into focus, because we are told that early detection of cancer is more than half the battle.
I want to quote also the recommendations that:
"A multi-disciplinary team approach should be developed and good practices in cancer care disseminated across HSS Boards and Trusts."
and
"The Department should urgently complete its analysis of staffing needs and produce a detailed regional workforce plan, underpinned by education and training for cancer staff".
Education and training programmes play a vital role in the fight against cancer.
I thank again those who came to the Committee to give evidence and express the professional opinions that are contained in the report and its recommendations. Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Iris Robinson: As a member of the Health Committee, I support the motion. I thank all the contributors who came from a wide range of interested groups concerned with cancer provision to give evidence and detailed accounts of their dealings with cancer services in Northern Ireland. It would be impossible to list them all, but they provided the Committee with a broad understanding of the entire cancer service provision in Northern Ireland. In particular, I commend Roy Spence and Patrick Johnston of Belfast City Hospital for their unstinting work in the cancer field. I thank the Committee Clerk for providing members with full briefings for each meeting of the Committee and for compiling the report. I also thank our Chairperson, Dr Hendron, for his detailed presentation, which left little more to be said.
The issue of cancer will, undoubtedly, touch every household in this country at some time. Cancer is set to become the biggest killer in Northern Ireland in the next few years. At current rates of incidence in the UK as a whole, one person in three will be afflicted before their seventy-fifth birthday.
In the UK, almost 250,000 new cancers are diagnosed every year, and there are over 140,000 deaths from the disease. In Northern Ireland, which is identified as having high levels of poverty and social deprivation and as lacking in health investment, it is unacceptable that cancer services do not enjoy a pro rata ring-fenced spending increase in line with the rest of the UK.
With that additional money, Northern Ireland’s cancer services could support a strategic plan for improved staffing levels, facilities, equipment, drugs and information systems. Additional funding will be extremely difficult to acquire for Northern Ireland, such is the unfair and disproportionate level of funding it receives. For a country that is at the upper end of the socio-economic deprivation league compared with the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland has demonstrably lower funding allocations for health services.
During the 1990s, when expenditure on health in Northern Ireland rose by 35% in real terms, the rise in England was 57%. Although the contrast in percentage is evident, the disparity becomes more obvious when the differential with England is applied pro rata to Northern Ireland’s health budget. Had Northern Ireland matched the increases for England, health and personal social services would have gained an extra £83 million this year, £138 million for 2002-03 and £214 million for 2003-04. Several Colleagues referred to those figures earlier. However, I believe that it is important to emphasise those amazing figures. I would like someone to tell me that those figures are fair and reasonable. The people of Northern Ireland are treated in a second-class fashion in relation to the proper and proportionate allocation of health funding.
The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety undertook the inquiry into cancer services for three reasons. First, there was consensus on the need for a strong focus on the disease that is set to become our biggest killer. Secondly, Committee members were aware of the public’s concern with regard to the equality of, and access to, cancer treatment across Northern Ireland. Thirdly, an inquiry would provide the opportunity to review what progress, if any, had been made in Northern Ireland since the Campbell Report in 1996.
The Committee’s investigative remit included, at its core, patients’ needs, provision of services, staffing levels of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, variations in services for different cancers and the structure of the cancer centre and the cancer units. As Members can see, the Committee carried out a full investigation. It found that, although some progress has been made, more work and, more importantly, more money is required.
Not all of the 41 recommendations in the report will cost more money. Many of the recommendations concern good practice and should already be receiving attention from the Department. However, many other recommendations will need extra cash to achieve a successful outcome. In order to raise the provision of cancer services in Northern Ireland, the inevitable requirement is funding. The ambitious National Health Service cancer plan for England and Wales, which aims to deliver the fastest-improving cancer services in Europe over the next five years, is something that we should also aim for. The plan will receive considerable additional resources: some £280 million in 2001-02, £407 million in 2002-03 and £570 million in 2003-04. What does Northern Ireland receive in comparison?
I want to draw Members’ attention to a report in the ‘Daily Express’, which I was reading this morning on my way from London. It states:
"Millions of women could soon undergo genetic screening to discover if they are at risk from breast cancer, after a breakthrough by scientists. Their revelations today, that a combination of dozens of genes cause the disease, is expected to revolutionise Britain’s approach to breast cancer within five years. The team at Cambridge University discovered that more than half of all breast cancer cases are likely to occur in a small group of women at high genetic risk. Screening those women, who make up just 12% of the population, or giving them preventative drugs, could save many of the 13,000 breast cancer victims each year."
I am not for one moment saying that this is the route that we should take, but it is an interesting approach. The newspaper report goes on to say that, rather than spending lots of money on a "one-size-fits-all" breast screening programme that examines some women too often and others not enough, screening could be planned according to a woman’s risk. For women with a very high risk of getting the disease, drugs such as tamoxifen may be useful preventative agents.
Last night, experts predicted that, within five years, it would be possible to provide a national genetic screening programme. If we are to make strides towards a breakthrough in the treatment of breast cancer, it is important for the money to be in place to bring those benefits to women diagnosed with the disease.
In relation to cancers caused by smoking, a newspaper this morning stated that America is now banning the sale of cigarettes to people under the age of 21. I believe that the previous age was 18, but it has now been raised to 21. America leads the world in the banning of smoking in public places. It also has stringent laws deterring young people from being caught in the trap of beginning smoking. Can something akin to that not be pursued in Northern Ireland? Why are we always lagging behind? Think of the money that the National Health Service would save in treatment, and of the number of man- hours that would be saved in the workplace.
The Executive’s Programme for Government sets out their aims to improve the quality of health treatment and care for the people of Northern Ireland. How will that be done without additional funding? Northern Ireland’s cancer services are not on a par with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is vital that substantial investment in cancer services be achieved if we are to receive the quality and level of care that should be expected in a modern, patient-centred Health Service.
It is important that this report follows on from the initiative first begun by the Calman Hyne Report in 1995, and by the Campbell Report in 1996, which has helped to increase the provision of cancer services in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Committee’s report will not be wasted or ignored but will, in fact, spur us all on to get the proper funding that cancer services require. There is no doubt — statistics clearly back up the argument — that we are unfairly treated in Northern Ireland. I urge Members to support the report and to join together to demand extra funding for this service, which desperately requires our immediate attention.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: In previous discussions in the Chamber on the Health Service, I have said that the most important people are the users of the service. On this occasion, I am sure that everybody agrees that the direct needs of those for whom the cancer service exists — the patients — must be uppermost in our minds.
Time and again, in submissions to the Committee, individuals strongly expressed their desire for the development of a patient-centred cancer service, with the threefold purpose of early diagnosis, prompt referral and early consultation. On early diagnosis, much greater emphasis must be placed on heightening public awareness about the symptoms of cancer. Information on the symptoms must be presented in an easily understood format. Urgent diagnosis will lead to patients being admitted to hospital for immediate treatment or being placed on a waiting list for non-urgent treatment. Screening is a vital tool in the early detection of the disease and contributes to improved survival rates.
The breast screening programme was mentioned. It has contributed to the best survival rates in the UK. However, we must do more, especially in educating the public and in targeting the uptake of screening programmes among the poorer people in the population, because it is there that uptakes are well below average and cancer rates are at their highest.
There is scope for the Health Promotion Agency, together with the health action zones and primary care professionals, to promote greater public awareness in the areas of highest deprivation.
With regard to referrals, the Campbell Report indicated an expectation of a two-week deadline between GP referral and a patient’s being seen by a consultant. However, with the exception of breast cancer referrals, waiting times are longer. The Eastern Health and Social Services Council reported that patients wait six to seven weeks for radiotherapy.
In the matter of early consultation to improve waiting times, Northern Ireland must learn from such initiatives in GB as the Cancer Services Collaborative to maximise the benefits of multidisciplinary teamwork and redesign services from the patient’s perspective.
Progress towards a new target of one month from diagnosis to treatment will require significant investment in equipment and in staff. On the community care side, more patients are treated as day patients and cared for at home. Although that is good, it places more pressure on that service. More skilled staff are needed, together with more domiciliary care packages. In some submissions to the Committee there was evidence that the number of referrals was growing every month. I ask the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that the necessary funding is in place to provide support for the increasing demand on the community care service.
Many patients live not only long distances from the cancer centre but also long distances from cancer units. There must be a strong focus on the delivery of services at local hospitals to cut down on transport. The new cancer units are a welcome development and have brought 50% of chemotherapy treatment closer to the patients. The Committee supports, for example, the idea of a local nurse practitioner’s carrying out reviews at local hospital clinics. The Committee also welcomed the improvement of primary care facilities to support taking blood samples nearer the patient’s home and sending the results electronically to the regional cancer centre as an example of overcoming the problem of distance.
With regard to patient involvement, the poor level of communication at all levels was cited as a concern by patients, especially when it came to the breaking of bad news. Patients valued the personal touch in those circumstances. The point was made repeatedly that patients want to be treated sensitively and as people. Members might think that that goes without saying, but what the Committee heard indicates that improvements could be made in that area.
I refer now to a regional workforce plan. Effective investigation and treatment of cancer requires the combined services of specialist doctors, nurses and others, and I support the tributes and complimentary remarks on the work of volunteers for the service. To meet the growing demand for cancer services, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must work alongside the boards, the trusts and the voluntary sector to bring about a detailed workforce plan for the recruitment and retention of the expanded range of staff, to include surgeons, GPs, nurses, scientists, therapists, technicians and administrative staff.
Steps must be taken to examine the pay, flexible working hours and structured career progression of cancer staff, particularly in areas with labour market shortages. The Committee agrees that planning for such a complex operation must be detailed and, therefore, will take time and involve additional resources.
Progress towards an expansion of patient-centred services for Northern Ireland must be supported by the implementation of a realistic regional cancer plan with clear leadership, targets, milestones and effective auditing mechanisms. We need a comprehensive strategy similar to the NHS cancer plan for England.
Prevention has been mentioned. Smoking accounts for 30% of all cancers and 80% of lung cancers. There is scope for the Health Promotion Agency to work with others. Combined efforts must be made to increase public awareness of the dangers of smoking, particularly among young people. The Health Promotion Agency’s initiative should be given appropriate financial support.
The Committee received an interesting submission from Dr Anna Gavin of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. The registry collects and analyses information on all people who are diagnosed with cancer. As well as issuing a report for Northern Ireland, the registry contributes to the publication of an all-Ireland statistical report on cancer. Members will understand that that information is useful and important in the battle against cancer. However, data protection issues and the concerns of the General Medical Council mean that doctors are cautious about releasing information about their patients. That reluctance leads to an incomplete picture of cancer patients, which places limitations on research, for example. It is an issue that must be addressed, and while the protection of that data is important, the concerns about cancer should outweigh the risks that I have outlined.
To put patients first, we should reassure them about the confidentiality of their records. The Department must act to overcome the information gap. The Committee believes that the Department should either make cancer a notifiable disease or refer to section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 for Great Britain, which would resolve the issue.
I thank all who made submissions. I especially thank the Committee staff. The preparation of the report created a demanding workload, and they responded with energy and enthusiasm.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Déanaim comhghairdeachas leis an Dr Hendron agus lena Choiste as a dtuarascáil thábhachtach dhea- dheartha ar sheirbhísí ailse. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil deis luath ag an Tionól an tuarascáil a phlé; tuarascáil ar ábhar atá an-tábhachtach ag ár bpobal.
Beidh mé ag féachaint go cúramach ar an 41 mholadh sa tuarascáil, chomh maith leis na moltaí a luaigh Comhaltaí sa díospóireacht inniu. Tá obair thábhachtach ar bun cheana féin ag forbairt seirbhísí ailse, agus tagróidh mé di sin níos déanaí. Déanfaidh mé trácht achomair fosta ar chuid de phríomh-mholtaí na tuarascála.
B’fhéidir go mbeadh sé ina chuidiú ag Comhaltaí dá ndéarfainn cúpla focal ginearálta faoinár seirbhísí ailse. Aithníonn tuarascáil an Choiste gur cuireadh feabhas nach beag le heagraíocht ár gcuid seirbhísí ailse ó foilsíodh Tuarascáil Campbell i 1996.
Bhí feabhsúcháin suntasacha ann. Mar shampla, forbraíodh seirbhísí áitiúla oinceolaíochta sna haonaid ailse, agus soláthraítear breis agus 50% de cheimiteiripe othar lae taobh amuigh den aonad ailse i mBéal Feirste. Ceapadh comhairligh agus oiliúnaithe oinceolaíochta agus altra sa lárionad ailse agus sna haonaid ailse; fágann sin go bhfuil thart ar 500 ball foirne gnóthach ag cur seirbhísí radaiteiripe agus ceimiteiripe ar fáil do othair ailse aosacha. Rinneadh cur chun cinn suntasach ag bunú foirne ildisciplíneacha agus ag oiliúint foirne. Tháinig méadú faoi thrí ar líon na n-oiliúnaithe san oinceolaíocht mhíochaine sna cúig bliana seo chuaigh thart; tháinig méadú ar an líon oiliúnaithe sa mhíochaine cúraim mhaolaithigh fosta. Tháinig borradh suntasach fosta i líon na n-oiliúnaithe atá ag gabháil don raideolaíocht, don histeapaiteolaíocht agus don phaiteolaíocht.
I congratulate Dr Hendron and the Committee on producing an important and well-crafted report on cancer services. I am delighted that the Assembly has had such an early opportunity to debate the report, which covers a subject that is of crucial interest and relevance to the community. I wish to consider carefully the report’s 41 recommendations and the many points that Members raised in the debate. Significant work is already under way in developing cancer services, and I shall speak about that later. I shall also touch briefly on several of the report’s main recommendations.
It may be helpful if I begin with some general remarks about our cancer services. The Committee’s report recognises the very positive achievements that have been made in the organisation of our cancer services since the publication of the Campbell Report in 1996. Significant improvements have been made. Local oncology services have been developed at the cancer units, and over 50% of day-patient chemotherapy is now provided outside the cancer centre in Belfast. That is important because chemotherapy can be provided closer to people’s homes, involving less travel and reducing stress for patients who are very ill.
Significant progress has been achieved by the establishment of the multidisciplinary cancer teams and by staff training. Additional consultant oncologists, specialist trainees and nurses, along with support staff, have been appointed to the cancer centre and units. That brings the total number of staff who are involved in the provision of radiotherapy and chemotherapy services to adult cancer patients to about 500.
It is important to plan for the future, as John Kelly and Tommy Gallagher said. In that respect, the number of trainees in medical oncology has trebled in the past five years, as has the number in palliative care medicine. In addition there have been significant increases in the numbers of trainee radiologists, histopathologists and pathologists. The Department has established international links with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the United States, and the Department of Health and Children in Dublin, to create a cancer consortium, which was mentioned by the Chairperson of the Committee, by Sam Foster and others. As they said, these arrangements afford world-class links to our research community. The enthusiastic involvement of the NCI is, in part, a response to the quality of the research that is being carried out here.
The cancer consortium, which links the health and research communities, North and South, with the NCI in the US, is an outstanding practical example of co-operation. Through the consortium, the research and development office has already secured two jointly funded, three-year epidemiology fellowships, which are linked to the Belfast and the Southern cancer registries. The close co-operation and collaboration registries will, for the first time, make data available on the incidence of cancer throughout the island of Ireland. The consortium is also fostering a scholar exchange programme among the three partners, as well as a major clinical trials initiative. The latter will enable cancer patients throughout the island of Ireland to participate in clinical trials.
We will also take part in international conferences. One such conference will take place at the Royal Victoria Hospital in October 2002. We will oversee the establishment of the Telesynergy network, which can facilitate exchanges of data and images between the National Cancer Institute in the USA and ourselves. The institute is anxious to improve palliative care arrangements in the USA, and are looking at our palliative care arrangements as a model.
I am pleased that the Committee has acknowledged the improvements that have been made in areas such as the development of cancer units, the innovative work in palliative care services and the improvement of chemotherapy treatment.
Bob Coulter, Sue Ramsey and the Committee Chairperson also made the important point that many more patients are now being referred for cancer treatment. Twenty per cent more patients are receiving chemotherapy now, by comparison to four years ago, while radiotherapy treatments have increased by 14% in the last year alone. Although the growth in demand is evident, cancer services staff receive large numbers of patients for diagnosis, treatment and review.
I echo Members’ acknowledgement of the debt of thanks that we owe to the staff working in that crucial area. Their hard work, commitment and dedication underpins the developments in that area and ensures the continued development and improvement of our cancer services.
Since the publication of the Campbell Report, cancer-related specialities have been given priority for increased trainee numbers. The number of trainees working in the medical oncology field has trebled in the past five years, as has the number of trainees working in palliative care medicine. There have also been significant increases in training numbers for radiologists, histopathologists, and haematologists. The Department’s development of workforce planning is proceeding as a matter of urgency, and I am committed to putting in place the steps necessary to ensure that we train, recruit and maintain the base of specialist staff necessary to provide modern cancer services.
Although substantial progress has been made, much remains to be done. In particular, I appreciate the Committee’s concerns about the speed of progress and the building of the new cancer centre. There has been no undue delay in advancing that vital development. I inherited a planned investment of some £32 million and a PFI process in train.
If time allowed, I could go through the steps taken by former Ministers and others in the service in the six years since the Campbell Report was published. However, I shall highlight only one issue. Last year, the trust and clinicians involved made the case that we needed a state-of-the-art facility, incorporating new and emerging technology, and building on advances in patient care and treatment. They stressed that the cancer centre must be designed and equipped to serve the community well into the next century, therefore calling into question the planned investment level of £32 million.
Thus, I had a decision to make, and I have made that decision. I decided not to proceed simply on the basis of what had already been there, but I agreed that a revised business case should be produced to achieve the vision of a modern, patient-friendly centre. That work, which has drawn on expert advice and the latest planning guidelines available, has resulted in a substantial remodelling of the centre. The business case for the new centre has been improved and now stands at £57 million, and I am considering urgently the financing of the new facility. I will be seeking funding for this major building project from the next tranche of Executive programme funds and appreciate the support that the Committee has offered me in securing that funding.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety quoted Patrick Johnson in his opening remarks. I will quote from a recent press release issued on behalf of Belfast City Hospital Trust in which that internationally acclaimed professor of oncology, based at Queen’s University and Belfast City Hospital, confirmed what has been said about recent developments in the cancer centre.
"It is also important that the necessary time has been taken to get our vision for the new Cancer Centre right. The concept of cancer centres and what they should contain has been evolving rapidly in recent years. The original proposals have now been expanded to ensure that the new Cancer Centre is sized not only for current demands but to meet future demands, technological advances and changes in treatment regimes. There has been enormous development of our understanding in each of these areas during the past few years."
In his opening comments, the Chairperson said that value for money is a primary consideration, so he will understand why I have to look carefully at any rise from £32 million to £57 million in the financing of such a centre and ask my officials to do the same. I am delighted that my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel have approved the business case.
Another important development is the forthcoming provision of MRI scanners for each cancer unit. These new scanners, along with the installation of an MRI scanner at the City Hospital and a replacement MRI scanner for the Royal Group of Hospitals, will make a key contribution to cancer care and will effectively reduce waiting lists. Meanwhile, I am acutely aware of the importance of maintaining current services, particularly at Belvoir Park Hospital. As the Committee’s report recognises, the equipment there is ageing, and when it breaks down, it can disrupt patient care. I want to ensure that safe and effective services are available at Belvoir Park, and I will take any steps that are necessary to achieve that. In that context, I am glad that my Department has been able to secure funding to install two new linear accelerators at Belvoir Park, and these will be operational by June next year.
In addition, I have approved a list of urgent remedial repair work and some £550,000 to fund immediate repairs to the building infrastructure and equipment to improve the current services. I am conscious of the increasing pressure on services at Belvoir Park, and my officials are liaising with boards and trusts to see what additional steps can be taken to enhance services at the hospital pending the installation of the two new linear accelerators. I assure Members that none of this work detracts from the ongoing planning or timing of the new cancer centre.
The Committee’s report recognises that cancer treatment and care is a resource- and cost-intensive service. As all Members said, funding is essential to ensure that continuing developments can be made to our cancer services, and, since I took office, I have provided £11 million of additional revenue for that. On top of the additional resources provided in 1999-2000, we are now investing £18 million more per annum in cancer services than in 1998-99. This is a significant investment, which I plan to supplement to a modest extent in 2002-03.
The Chairperson, Mrs Robinson and others pointed out that the Committee also highlighted the serious underfunding of our health and social services in recent years by comparison with the funding for those in England. Costs here are inescapably driven by developments in England. Just think of the pay review body’s recommendations, drug costs, clinical and other professional standards. The great bulk of my budget is effectively pre-empted by costs determined in England.
Mr Shannon, Mrs Robinson and Mr Gallagher also referred to the need for a regional cancer plan and to the NHS cancer plan. The Campbell Report provides the core of such a plan for the development of cancer services here. It is further underpinned by our wider public health strategy ‘Investing for Health’, the report on palliative care and separate initiatives on screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. As I said already, survival rates for breast cancer are better here than in Great Britain at present. Many elements of the national cancer plan in England are already in progress here. The modernisation and improvement of our cancer services has been under way for some time. This programme, which is well advanced, includes the development of a regional network with the cancer centre in Belfast and cancer units at Antrim, Belfast City Hospital, Altnagelvin, Craigavon and the Ulster hospitals.
Mrs Iris Robinson also referred to genetic cancer and the ‘Daily Express’ report. Genetic testing is available here for families with a known genetic predisposition. Specialists dealing with breast cancer cases are aware of the importance of increased frequency of screening for families with a genetic predisposition. Studies into the best way to treat people with a high genetic risk are under way.
I appreciate the Committee’s strong desire to increase funding in line with England, Scotland and Wales and to ring-fence any increase. However, I am also conscious that such an approach is only possible if our Health Service is adequately resourced overall. If the proposal were taken up at present, it could seriously undermine the funding of other vital health and social services. I am determined, however, to maximise the scope for the development of frontline services. In the coming year the modest level of developments that I envisage in my budget proposals for health and social services overall will only be possible because of the savings of £12 million that the service will achieve, which I mentioned, a further £3 million recurrently and £3 million non-recurrently that I am squeezing from my overall baseline.
Joe Hendron talked about the need to monitor outcomes and to ensure value for money. I fully support the process of audit throughout the cancer services, and I agree with the Chairperson that it is important. So far, £100,000 has been allocated through the regional medical audit group for cancer-related audit projects, and I fully accept that a systematic audit should be an integral part of the quality assurance process for cancer care.
Bob Coulter and Joe Hendron talked about the need to eliminate competition between various sectors, particularly primary and secondary care. The approach that I have taken, and which the service is taking through priorities for action, is one of co-operation rather than competition, removing the last vestiges of the internal market and making the most of our integrated services. My Department’s regional advisory committee on cancer and the Campbell Commissioning Project have already ensured that a great deal of work has gone into the development of professional guidance and the organisation of services, referral pathways and treatment regimes. I am aware that initiatives are in place to improve communication between district nursing staff and specialist staff at the cancer centre and cancer units.
Jim Shannon and Rev Robert Coulter asked about guidance on waiting times. I announced that a two-week referral target would be introduced in August 2000 for people with suspected breast cancer. I have received advice from boards, trusts and specialist staff that it is vital that any progress towards hardening targets must be preceded by adequate resources. To introduce such targets without the right level of resources, staffing and physical capacity would risk distorting services to the direct disadvantage of patients who should have clinical priority.
I have also been advised that recent medical and scientific evidence shows that the two-week target is not appropriate for all cancer types and that earlier treatment may not always significantly benefit patient outcomes. It is important, therefore, that I take account of expert medical advice before making any firm decisions on setting further targets for early referrals. Rev Robert Coulter was also concerned about waiting times, specifically for males. Prostate cancer is a slow-growing condition and may be present for many years. Studies are taking place under the national screening committee into the optimal way to detect and treat the condition.
Paul Berry talked about the need to replace equipment. Indeed, in an ideal world one would be able to replace vital equipment in line with the manufacturers’ guidance and also invest in new technology, where and when it is proven, at the same time. However, health and personal social services have simply not been resourced to enable that to happen. I spoke often — in the Assembly and through the media — about funding failures in the past, especially during the leadership of the British Conservative Government. When I arrived in post, I found a service that had not had recurrent investment in staff, staff training, the replacement of equipment or in capacity, either in the community or in hospitals. Lack of capital created a backlog of some £35 million.
I have made real progress in the provision of imaging equipment in recent months, particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and I welcome the Committee’s appreciation of that.
Paul Berry also asked about variations in the delivery of services. I appreciate that in a period of expanding services, some variation in delivery across the service may arise. That will often reflect the availability and recruitment of specialist staff, who are often in short supply. I fully accept that we must ensure that high-quality services are available to cancer patients, regardless of where they live or which cancer unit they attend. I expect any variations in services to be addressed as more staff are appointed.
Sam Foster expressed concern about travel times for cancer patients. I am fully committed to ensuring good access to cancer services. As Dr Hendron has already acknowledged, more than half of all day-patient chemotherapy services are already provided in local cancer units, which are nearer people’s homes. That decentralisation of services has significantly reduced travelling times for many patients and has made services more accessible to many people with cancer.
I am also aware of local initiatives by trusts to help patients to access services. Transport to hospital is arranged for any patient who is unfit to travel. Tommy Gallagher will welcome the pilot scheme in the Erne Hospital, which may also provide a way forward for other areas. He asked whether the reviews could take place in local hospitals; therefore, he will be particularly pleased with the nurse-led pilot scheme at the Erne Hospital, the aim of which is to improve local access to services for appropriate oncology review patients. It may be possible to build upon that model. Mr Gallagher also asked about data protection. My Department is preparing a consultation paper that will consider data protection and confidentiality in health and social services. The paper will set out the issues faced by the health and personal social services and the possible solutions, including the option of legislation, which has been mentioned. I expect that paper to be issued shortly.
Mr Paul Berry expressed concern about the haemorrhaging of staff from cancer services here. That would have to be a concern, although there is little evidence to date that that is a reality. Some staff have gone elsewhere to work, but having regard to their place of origin, the numbers have been small to date. However, it is a matter of great importance to me, and I will be keeping that concern to the fore. I am anxious to increase the number of staff being trained, and the human resource strategy is being developed to address real and perceived shortages of specialist staff. Therefore I can assure the Committee that I will continue to work with Colleagues in the Executive to secure the level of funding that cancer services and all our other health and social services so rightly deserve.
As Rev Robert Coulter, John Kelly and others mentioned, the report highlighted that around 6,300 people are diagnosed with cancer each year and that approximately 3,600 die annually from cancer. The Committee has mentioned that the survival rates for ovarian cancer are poor. With the introduction of new treatment regimes, we expect that those rates will improve soon. However, I emphasise that our survival rates for breast cancer are better than GB’s. In addition, treatment for testicular cancer has been the great success story of the past 10 years.
As Joe Hendron and Paul Berry said, the Committee’s report points out that general practitioners are usually the first point of contact for a cancer patient and can play a pivotal role in early detection, referral, treatment and care. I firmly agree that GPs have a crucial role in cancer care. I want to ensure that guidelines are developed to help to raise awareness of cancer symptoms among GPs and the public. Although we do not want to frighten people, we should aim to make awareness of symptoms part of everyday life and to reinforce the fact that early diagnosis can lead to a cure.
The regional advisory committee on cancer, which was set up by my Department, has already produced a series of guidelines that have a particular focus on the needs of primary care. In general, those guidelines have been produced by multidisciplinary teams, and in some instances the regional advisory committee on cancer has endorsed guidelines produced in England and Scotland, where the material has been suitable.
Sue Ramsey, John Kelly and Jim Shannon talked about the importance of early detection and health promotion. Smoking is responsible for one in three of all cancer deaths, and it is important to tackle tobacco use. A public information campaign has been running since 1999 and aims to increase public awareness of the dangers of smoking. The campaign has included television advertisements, a web site and a magazine aimed at young people.
The latest phase of the campaign includes a hard- hitting television advertisement titled ‘Artery’ — described very graphically by Jim Shannon — and is aimed mainly at adult smokers. Two additional advertisements promote nicotine replacement therapy, and the campaign, which will run until the end of March, also promotes a telephone helpline service. Members will be pleased to know that there will be follow-up advertising.
Last year I established an inter-sectoral working group on tobacco to develop and oversee the implementation of a comprehensive action plan to tackle smoking. The Department of Health and Children is represented on that group. I remain committed to banning the advertisement of tobacco products, as it undermines the work of health professionals and others who try to prevent the adoption of the smoking habit and who deal with the consequences of smoking. My officials are pursuing how best to progress that issue, taking into account developments in Britain and the South of Ireland.
With the help of the Health Promotion Agency, the Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Executive of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, my Department will explore how best to build on the existing provision of smoke-free facilities in all public places and workplaces.
Jim Shannon, John Kelly and Sue Ramsey specifically highlighted smoking among young people. Children are vulnerable, and great care must be taken in the design and content of campaigns aimed at discouraging schoolchildren and young people from smoking. It is essential that such campaigns be pre-tested with the target audience to ensure, as far as possible, that they achieve the desired effect. Two television advertisements aimed at second- and third-year pupils have already been broadcast, and my Department will continue to work closely with the Health Promotion Agency, the voluntary and community sectors, and others, to tackle the problems of smoking among schoolchildren and young people.
Sue Ramsey talked about the importance of diet and the promotion of healthy eating. Nutrition is one of the priority areas identified in the Executive’s public health programme, ‘Investing for Health’, which will be published shortly. Surveys commissioned by the Health Promotion Agency have demonstrated a significant increase in awareness and understanding of key messages on nutrition and health, and my officials have been monitoring the introduction in Britain of the national fruit scheme. From December 2002 the ministerial group on health plans to introduce free fruit in schools as a pilot project, now that we have secured resources from the Executive programme funds.
Voluntary charities are excellent at reaching people’s hearts and minds and play an invaluable role in health promotion. I want to ensure that the statutory sector works with the voluntary sector to further develop the role of charities in health promotion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind the Minister that she is entitled to speak for 10 minutes for each hour of the debate. I ask her to draw her remarks to a conclusion.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Committee has recommended that all patients should have equity of access to out-of-hours services, and I support that recommendation. The South and East Belfast Trust has a 24-hour rapid-response team that has been pivotal in allowing patients to stay in their own homes, rather than going into hospital.
It is also proposed that a full out-of-hours referral capacity will be introduced in the future as the scope of the cancer unit increases.
The Committee’s report emphasised the many positive developments in our cancer services. Much good work has been done to improve and modernise those services, and there is still much to do.
I add my voice to the Committee’s praise for the important contribution to cancer care made by the voluntary organisations. I want to ensure that mechanisms like the cancer forum continue to drive forward the crucial partnership between the statutory and voluntary sectors.
As every Member who has spoken emphasised, the future development of our cancer services will depend on the availability of proper resources. I shall continue to work with my Executive Colleagues to secure the necessary funding to provide modern, safe and effective cancer services.
I have referred to several of the Committee’s recommendations and some of the issues mentioned in the debate. I shall give careful consideration to the Committee’s report, which is most helpful, and shall respond to the Committee in greater detail in the coming weeks.

Dr Joe Hendron: I thank the Minister for being present throughout the debate and for her comments, and I shall refer later to what she has said. I also thank all those Members who spoke in the debate. I hope that Members will not be frightened by the papers that I have here — I have only made a few sketchy notes. The only problem is that I cannot read my own handwriting.
Rev Robert Coulter and other Members referred to the question of waiting times. Rev Robert Coulter also mentioned breast cancer, and the lack of guidance for the male population on the types of cancer that they might have. Above all, he talked about the decisions that were being taken. I myself referred to the issue of communication with GPs. That is important in order to achieve early diagnosis.
Paul Berry referred to the Campbell Report and to strategies. He talked about the frustrations of patients, comprehensive long-term plans and the pressures on staff. He paid tribute to hospital staff, as did other Members. Mr Berry also mentioned an independent audit. There is no doubt that the workload of GPs has increased. It is also important to replace old equipment.
Ms Ramsey made some similar points. I appreciate the fact that she thanked the Business Committee. That was an important point, as we were not allowed three hours to debate the issue of children in care. My Colleagues all thanked their staff for the work that they have done.
Ms Ramsey and other Members referred to deprivation. The question of cigarettes comes up over and over again. The importance of a healthy diet that incorporates fruit and vegetables cannot be overestimated. I remind Colleagues of the World Health Organisation’s advice that five portions of fruit and vegetables should be eaten every day to help prevent cancer. The television advertisements have been very effective.
Ms Ramsey talked about cervical screening and breast screening in deprived areas. I hope that the boards are taking that matter seriously. Many references have been made to Prof Paddy Johnston and Prof Roy Spence. Ms Ramsey also talked about an all-Ireland cancer registry, and mention was made of the work of Dr Anna Gavin of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry.
Mr Foster described the number of deaths from cancer as frightening. That is especially so when one thinks of the number of Members of the Assembly who might fall victim to the disease. Mr Foster mentioned the memorandum of understanding that marked the tripartite agreement between the United States, Dublin and Belfast to establish a cancer centre of excellence. I recall our involvement as respective health spokesmen for our parties nearly three years ago.
Mr Foster also talked about people in rural areas, as did Mr Gallagher. There is a major problem there. I cannot even begin to address the issue of an area hospital for the south-west, other than to say that people there are entitled to as good a service as anyone else in Northern Ireland.
Mr Shannon talked about service delivery and waiting times, and about the one in three people who contract cancer and the one in four people who die from it. He also applied that scenario to the number of Members in the Assembly.
I referred to the fact that in some hospitals, especially in Antrim, people can wait for nine months for endoscopies. People may have to wait for seven or eight months to have a colonoscopy to find out if there is a possible tumour in their colon.
Mr Shannon referred to a regional plan and to cancer charities. He also spoke about the cigarette advert that shows the damage caused to the aorta by smoking. That advert is very powerful. John Kelly mentioned the work of Prof Patrick Johnston and others, and he talked about the physical and emotional needs of patients, about the number of new cancer cases and about the comparisons with England and Wales.
I referred to the Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Services (NICON) Report of the four boards in which Mr Brendan Cunningham compared funding in England and Wales with that in Northern Ireland. I shall not repeat those figures, but they are very important.
Mr Kelly dealt with the Health Promotion Agency and the problem of young people smoking. He also referred to health action zones, and I would like to make the point that we have health action zones in north and west Belfast, Armagh and Dungannon. That is medicine at the coalface. Those people do an outstanding job, and I should like to see the number of health action zones increased. Mr Kelly also referred to a workforce plan in education.
Iris Robinson thanked various people including Prof Roy Spence, Prof Patrick Johnston and the Committee Clerks. She referred to the fact that one in three people get cancer. She also mentioned social deprivation and the NICON Report. Mrs Robinson also talked about human resources — doctors and nurses — and the introduction of a cancer plan.
Huge funding is being pumped into cancer services in England and Wales in the next three years. The Minister referred to breast cancer and the importance of the high genetic risk. That screening can be carried out in Northern Ireland. Everyone is agreed that extra funding is needed to highlight the dangers of cigarettes.
Mr Gallagher talked about putting patients first, and no one will argue with that. Early diagnosis is the most important thing, followed by prompt referral to a consultant. He also dealt with health action zones and multidisciplinary teams.
Mr Foster referred to rural areas and the long distances that people have to travel for treatment. Reference was made to patient involvement and their being treated with sensitivity.
With regard to the all-Ireland cancer registry, I pay tribute to all involved in its development, especially Dr Anna Gavin.
I thank the Minister for her attendance. I appreciate her congratulations to the Committee, and I hope that she will study the 41 recommendations in its report. The Minister referred to the great achievements in cancer units — 50% of chemotherapy can now be administered closer to patients’ homes. The Committee met the multidisciplinary cancer teams and appreciates the work that they have done. The Minister also referred to the international link. One cannot emphasise that enough — I mentioned the Washington, Dublin and Belfast memorandum of understanding. The Minister also detailed the research and development that has been carried out, the extra staff trained in the treatment of cancer, the major trials that have been conducted throughout Ireland and the introduction of palliative care.
The Southern Board is making a magnificent effort through the use of pharmacists, other primary care professionals and a Macmillan GP facilitator so that people can get access to drugs such as morphine and pain relievers at night, at the weekend or at any other time. The Minister said that more patients are referred for cancer treatment, and I am sure that that is true. We owe a debt to all the staff. She also stated that more training has been undertaken since the publication of the Campbell Report.
I accept that the Minister inherited the problem of the cancer centre. The cancer figures have risen every year, so we need a major treatment centre. I am aware that three business plans have been published, the most recent of those in September 2001. The Department of Finance and Personnel agrees with that.
I wonder when the announcement will be made. She referred to Prof Paddy Johnston and others, and we all accept the point made about value for money. It is easy to want to open the centre tomorrow. However, getting the funding and value for money are important.
The Minister has worked hard on the subject of MRI scanners, and I pay tribute to her. She mentioned the genetic aspects of breast cancer, to which Mrs Robinson also referred. She mentioned the comparisons in funding in England and Wales with that in Northern Ireland, and we accept that there is a lack of capital. Furthermore, she mentioned poor survival rates from ovarian cancer, the early diagnosis by GPs, and diet, which is important for our young people.
I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, especially the Minister. However, my primary question is this: will she give a clear timetable soon for the new regional cancer centre? That is what people want to know. Mr Shannon made a point about banning smoking in public places, and I would like to see that happen. Much has been said about the Health Promotion Agency, but achieving funding is difficult. The agency receives a small amount of funding. However, it is doing a good job, and perhaps it should co-ordinate health promotion across the boards and trusts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the Second Report of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2/01R) on the Delivery of Cancer Services in Northern Ireland and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement the Report’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.
Adjourned at 6.12 pm